Woolly Mammoth Clones: Arriving Soon

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Woolly Mammoth Clones: Arriving Soon

A team of scientists from the Revive & Restore project are working to resurrect the woolly mammoth.

Until very recently, resurrecting an extinct species has been the stuff of sci-fi novels and monster movies. But a team of researchers from the The Long Now Foundation in San Francisco, California is on the verge of making this scientific wet dream a reality.

The Revive & Restore project has one very specific goal: the rescue of endangered and extinct animals. Right now, the team is focused on resurrecting the Passenger Pigeon, a species that was extinguished by overexploitation in 1914. But Revive & Restore is already working to pull the woolly mammoth out of extinction.

In an interview with the New York times, Stewart Brand, co-founder of Revive & Restore, explained that resurrecting the mammoth isn't just a publicity stunt. "We've framed it in terms of conservation," he said. "We're bringing back the mammoth to restore the steppe in the Arctic. One or two mammoths is not a success. 100,000 mammoths is a success."

Several hurdles will need to be vaulted before the San Diego Zoo can build a Mammoth exhibit, though. The science of cloning is advancing quickly, but modern techniques don't have enough horsepower to handle the mammoth. So, the Revive & Restore crew may have to recuse a few other species first.

Also, and this is that part that makes mammoth cloning seem significantly less cool, a perfectly cloned mammoth will never be possible. In order to clone an animal, scientists splice genetic material into an existing egg. Unfortunately, no mammoth eggs exist (nor will they ever), which means that scientists will need to use a species that's closely related: the Asian-elephant.

What emerges, then, will be a mammoth/Asian-elephant hybrid. Researchers will attempt to refine the process so that the clone's DNA closely resembles the extinct species, but we'll never really know how much of the mammoth has been lost in the process.

Source: New York Times, Revive & Restore

Permalink

News like this reminds me on a regular basis that we do indeed live in the future. It's awesome.

Side note, I don't know much about it but how long can genetic material remain in a usable state? It's been a while since there were any mammoths to donate it after all.

I can almost hear Jeff Goldblum rambling about natural selection and chaos theory.

TheEvilCheese:
News like this reminds me on a regular basis that we do indeed live in the future. It's awesome.

Side note, I don't know much about it but how long can genetic material remain in a usable state? It's been a while since there were any mammoths to donate it after all.

I think I read a few months back that they found some perfectly preserved flesh or something of that nature. they were able to get blood from it or some very usable material at least.

Actually, here it is, they actually found a whole mammoth (or most of one) with blood still preserved:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/199561/wooly-mammoth-found-with-blood-still-flowing-is-twice-as-old-as-earth-says-bible/

Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but isn't the simple solution to the problem of putting more mammoth into the hybrid just doing the process over again with the mammoth DNA and the new hybrid's eggs, and then repeating until you're satisfied?

while i understand the benefit to science its a bad idea you release these into the wild or into a preserve then i hope you have plenty of money for constant patrols from ivory hunters

Why does need to happen, really? Im not a animal rightstavist or got anything higher than a C minus in biology but does this really need to happen? Mammoths are already furry & full of fatness because they had to be in the ice age. Theres elephants in Africa & India... 2 of the most un-apologetically hottest places in the world and the elephants are bald. Kudnt the research be better spent on curing diseases, ending world hunger, or maybe developing energy that wont rely on foreign resources? This just seems like a Science:"because we can" and not a "because there is a need."

Passenger Pigeons are one thing. Mammoths are a completely different beast.

If we assume the sample is viable for a happy, healthy clone, there are certainly a lot of natural hurdles. Elephants tend to breed once every 4 years (?) for a very brief period. If a baby mammoth is produced and is carried to term, the pregnancy for a mother elephant is about 2 years. It's a long and tiring process to even get REGULAR elephants to breed. If something happens at any time, imagine the process in starting over (or even finding a new recipient). Not to mention the possible ethical concerns regarding tinkering with an endangered species (especially one that many argue doesn't thrive in captivity, doesn't tolerate certain medical procedures well, and has the potential to be VERY dangerous even with handlers).

But hurray for science none the less.

ZZoMBiE13:
I can almost hear Jeff Goldblum rambling about natural selection and chaos theory.

Uh, Life, uh, finds a, uh, way.

OT: So will we get Ice Age Park? If so, I'm in.

I'm in two minds about this

99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, I think it's throwing a bit of a spanner in the works if we try to cling to something that that has no right to exist. And let's not forget that when our species kills off another that's still natural selection, and still proves that whatever we resurrect has no right to survive.

On the other hand I am an advocate of using biology in the same way we use our technology, if this is to make the steppe a bit more habitable for us then I'm all for it. Mind I don't actually understand what it is they intend to do there as the reasons given are vague at best, but engineering an environment using living organisms is the kinda thing I have wet dreams about so I can't complain.

Leonardo Huizar:
Kudnt the research be better spent on curing diseases, ending world hunger, or maybe developing energy that wont rely on foreign resources?

The day we stop doing things like this is the day we die in a way that no amount of food, medicine or shelter can ever recover.

TheEvilCheese:
Side note, I don't know much about it but how long can genetic material remain in a usable state? It's been a while since there were any mammoths to donate it after all.

I was wondering about this as well. I vaguely recall reading a journal couple of months back that set the half life of DNA at 500 years or so. But it was only one study and as such only open avenues for research, rather than presenting conclusions, so let's see.

Of course we can't forget that Dolly ended her life riddled with cancer, and while our tech has improved should the genetic degradation prove to match the 500 year estimate I don't see these mammoths living all that long; but we can't know until we try.

Josh Engen:

The Revive & Restore project has one very specific goal: the rescue of endangered and extinct animals. Right now, the team is focused on resurrecting the Passenger Pigeon, a species that was extinguished by overexploitation in 1914.

I'm far more excited about this, honestly. As awesome as seeing a living, breathing wolly mammoth would be, I'm not sure it's such a good idea to bring them back. The world is a very different place now than it was during the mammoth's heyday, namely it's much warmer.

Passenger pigeons on the other hand would still be alive and well today if not for human interference, so I'm all for bringing them back. It's amazing reading accounts about them from settlers. They were once so numerous that flights of them would blot out the sun, sometimes for hours. The noise produced was deafening, and when they roosted branches would sometimes break under their collective weight. It's astounding and more than a little depressing that it was forced to extinction in such a short span of time, and I feel it only right that we try to bring them back to make amends for such wanton exploitation and destruction.

Just hurry up and announce a miniature version so I can throw all of my money at you.

Bke:
I'm in two minds about this

99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, I think it's throwing a bit of a spanner in the works if we try to cling to something that that has no right to exist. And let's not forget that when our species kills off another that's still natural selection, and still proves that whatever we resurrect has no right to survive.

The right to survive has nothing to do with it. The fittest having survived simply means they are still here, not that they earned a right to be here.

SecondPrize:
The right to survive has nothing to do with it. The fittest having survived simply means they are still here, not that they earned a right to be here.

Well actually it's implied in the entire philosophy that by simply surviving you have earned your right to do so. When you stop surviving you lose that right. Remember, no matter what laws we impose upon ourselves, justice isn't a natural property of the universe. As such morality doesn't really factor into natural selection, it's binary either you do or don't. It's not like you can earn the right but have it snatched away from you by some dastardly villain.

Bke:

SecondPrize:
The right to survive has nothing to do with it. The fittest having survived simply means they are still here, not that they earned a right to be here.

Well actually it's implied in the entire philosophy that by simply surviving you have earned your right to do so. When you stop surviving you lose that right. Remember, no matter what laws we impose upon ourselves, justice isn't a natural property of the universe. As such morality doesn't really factor into natural selection, it's binary either you do or don't. It's not like you can earn the right but have it snatched away from you by some dastardly villain.

By surviving you survive. Rights don't come into it. I don't need to have permission to keep breathing, I merely need to keep breathing.

Kenbo Slice:

ZZoMBiE13:
I can almost hear Jeff Goldblum rambling about natural selection and chaos theory.

Uh, Life, uh, finds a, uh, way.

OT: So will we get Ice Age Park? If so, I'm in.

If we get an Ice Age park, I want Ray Romano to be their spokesperson.

Also:

Bke:
And let's not forget that when our species kills off another that's still natural selection, and still proves that whatever we resurrect has no right to survive.

That sounds so arbitrary. Who made up that rule?

LifeCharacter:
Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but isn't the simple solution to the problem of putting more mammoth into the hybrid just doing the process over again with the mammoth DNA and the new hybrid's eggs, and then repeating until you're satisfied?

You're kind of right but the problem you have then is inbreeding. If the mammoth they use initially has some kind of mammoth disease or susceptibility to something then it's likely all the other mammoths will have it and they will be vulnerable in the wild. It would be a huge waste of money to bring them back only for them all to die again because of a cold! So it's probably better than we create some kind of hybrid and then perhaps attempt to make a sub-species of those that are truer to the original for old times sake.

I seem to remember there being a species of owl that was brought back from the brink by breeding the single living bird with the most closely related species and inbreeding them so they had more of them. But I can't find anything about them on Google :(

Bke:

SecondPrize:
The right to survive has nothing to do with it. The fittest having survived simply means they are still here, not that they earned a right to be here.

Well actually it's implied in the entire philosophy that by simply surviving you have earned your right to do so. When you stop surviving you lose that right. Remember, no matter what laws we impose upon ourselves, justice isn't a natural property of the universe. As such morality doesn't really factor into natural selection, it's binary either you do or don't. It's not like you can earn the right but have it snatched away from you by some dastardly villain.

There is no such thing as a implicit right to survive. Nothing has an implicit right to survive, not even the living, so you can't use the lack of right to survive as an argument to not clone or re-engineer an extinct animal.

You can claim it is unethical to bring an animal or thing into a world that will is inhospitable to it. Inhospitably simply being whatever reasons for their demise. But that is a different argument on ethics...

And then lets bring the Sabre-Tooth Tiger back after that!

No gods, no masters, only man.

I love the idea of humans giving natural selection the big "fuck you".

We don't control this planet until we can both destroy AND create whatever we want.

Kenbo Slice:

ZZoMBiE13:
I can almost hear Jeff Goldblum rambling about natural selection and chaos theory.

Uh, Life, uh, finds a, uh, way.

OT: So will we get Ice Age Park? If so, I'm in.

*yawn* this is old news NatGeo covered this months ago, and kenbo apparently you are not aware of the fact many beleve our early ancestors drove them to extinction

and according to NatGeo the mammoths if they succeed are planned to go to a zoo in japan

With all the Jurassic Park references going around.
I think its worth pointing out that these won't be mammoths, they'll just be theme park monsters that look like mammoths.
A bio-mechanical entertainment system if you will.

Considering I'll pay $10+ to see an electro mechanical entertainment system throw photons at a wall.
I think I'd pay $40+ to see these creatures.
Even more if they include some of those spiffy transgenic glow in the dark cats!

Because what we're creating is something new, it's no more unethical then the creation of those aforementioned transgenic animals.
Granted there are legitimate arguments regarding animal rights; almost all of which I disagree with, but recognize their validity.

As for "Nature selecting these animals to die", this betrays an anthropomorphism of an impersonal process.
Sort of like saying "Nature intended that San Francisco be hit by an earthquake".
Even if this was a case of nature making a conscious choice.... who cares?
Nature selects millions of people to die every year from disease, but we do not see an ethical dilemma in saaaaay driving the polio virus into extinction and making sure children don't meet their evolutionary fate. Hell the only dilemma is that we can't do more of both.

SecondPrize:
By surviving you survive. Rights don't come into it. I don't need to have permission to keep breathing, I merely need to keep breathing.

SamTheNewb:
There is no such thing as a implicit right to survive. Nothing has an implicit right to survive, not even the living, so you can't use the lack of right to survive as an argument to not clone or re-engineer an extinct animal.

You can claim it is unethical to bring an animal or thing into a world that will is inhospitable to it. Inhospitably simply being whatever reasons for their demise. But that is a different argument on ethics...

Well that's the thing isn't it? the animal is extinct and by bringing it back we have to invoke the ethical argument. That's what I was getting at. And don't forget this was only one part of my argument, I did express converse sentiments. Or did no one read the rest of my post?

RA92:
That sounds so arbitrary. Who made up that rule?

What I was getting at with this whole thing is that when a species is killed off it's usually for a good reason. When you bring back "obsolete" biological factors into the environment you're not actually helping the progress of evolution. And usually the only reason I can see we would bring something back is because we feel bad that its gone... now while our compassion does have to factor in I do feel its detrimental to the aforementioned progress.

Consequently from my standpoint, unless we found something useful that the animal in question provides, we can't really justify bringing it back. And even then it's tenuous as most of the time our interference will ensure that whatever we resurrect will get a decent foothold, which will, in turn, deny the ecological niche the resurrected animal occupies to other creatures that might come to occupy it through natural evolution.

Again I'm all for doing this, really I chastised someone for saying we shouldn't if you read back. Just remember that once we do it we will need to decide where we draw the line. Resurrecting every animal whose DNA we get our mitts on might not be the best idea.

I wish this was a stunt rather than an attempt to reintroduce a species. Creating a super-rare breeds zoo would be fine, you could create tourism and jobs it would allow you to fund other species perhaps. But to reintroduce an extinct species into the wild without a proper study of whether it is suitable for reintroduction would be as irresponsible allowing a species to go extinct.

Just take the reintroduction of the sea eagle into Scotland. Yes it has been a success, if you listen to conservationists and the press. However I have family friends who are crofters in the highlands and they will tell you an absolutely different story, the sea eagles are a dangerous pest now that have caused many crofters to loose so many lambs and sheep that they have had to move away ruining generations of family heritage. This is because the salmon stocks that make up the primary food source for the sea eagle no longer exist in the rivers naturally, they're all salmon farms. Therefore the eagles have turned to other sources of food: The sheep and lambs. Conservationists will tell you that a sea eagle won't do this but I have see evidence of a sheep with its side slashed to ribbons by a sea eagles talons when the sheep was protecting its lamb. Crofters have seen eagles attacking their stock, the conservationists have asked for picture/video proof but that's because they seek to avoid the issue rather than admit they may have made a mistake. Also catching a sea eagle close enough to identify it properly is rather difficult when your a crofter and don't have access to high end zoom lenses.

A case where reintroduction has worked however is the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone park, this worked because the wolves main source of food: elk had reached population numbers that were wrecking the ecosystem.

A passenger pigeon maybe OK but will it cause a boom of predators that will then whittle down other species they use as a food source? The pigeon has been extinct for over a 100 years now so the ecosystem balance has adapted to not having it in.

Josh Engen:
"We're bringing back the mammoth to restore the steppe in the Arctic. One or two mammoths is not a success. 100,000 mammoths is a success."

What predators exist to prevent over population? The polar bear may be big but do you really see it bringing down a mammoth? Does that mean we then need to introduce a saber tooth tiger hybrid? What happens if one of those gets loose in a human population center? (it will happen as people will want to keep one for it's exotic nature and rarity and they will get out). This is wear a publicity stunt would be fine in my eyes, a reintroduction of multiple species that have been extinct for thousands of years is irresponsible as they could get.

Bke:

What I was getting at with this whole thing is that when a species is killed off it's usually for a good reason. When you bring back "obsolete" biological factors into the environment you're not actually helping the progress of evolution. And usually the only reason I can see we would bring something back is because we feel bad that its gone... now while our compassion does have to factor in I do feel its detrimental to the aforementioned progress.

Consequently from my standpoint, unless we found something useful that the animal in question provides, we can't really justify bringing it back. And even then it's tenuous as most of the time our interference will ensure that whatever we resurrect will get a decent foothold, which will, in turn, deny the ecological niche the resurrected animal occupies to other creatures that might come to occupy it through natural evolution.

Again I'm all for doing this, really I chastised someone for saying we shouldn't if you read back. Just remember that once we do it we will need to decide where we draw the line. Resurrecting every animal whose DNA we get our mitts on might not be the best idea.

Ok so bringing back the mammoth is not "helping" evolution?
You know whats not helping evolution?
Saving those critically endangered animals.
After all those tigers are obviously not necessary, their so few that they must have a negligible impact.
Pharmacological everything they do is no better than placebo, why are we preserving them?
Why not resume hunting and finish the job?
After all all those insects we regularly try to kill have evolved marvelous resistance methods! Clearly attempting to wipe out everything is the best course.

Now reintroducing the mammoth is clearly a bad idea. Invasive species always are.
But why not have a few thousand of them distributed over various zoos?

Oh dear.
Some day we'll succeed with this and completely fuck up one or 2 ecosystems.

At this point, I'll take anything better than an elephant covered in carpet samples.

Kenbo Slice:
So will we get Ice Age Park? If so, I'm in.

That comes after we clone Sabre-tooth cats and Neanderthals...!

Our ancestors wiped out the mammoth species. I think they did so for a reason, and bringing back this cruel, oppressive breed of super-elephant will only spell doom for all of humanity.

LifeCharacter:
Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but isn't the simple solution to the problem of putting more mammoth into the hybrid just doing the process over again with the mammoth DNA and the new hybrid's eggs, and then repeating until you're satisfied?

That's not how genetics work. Every time you fertilize an egg there is a percent probability that one characteristic will be chosen. An elephant trait could be dominant while a trait all mammoths had could be recessive. No amount of added mammoth DNA, or RNA, will ever bring that recessive trait out.

Examples

Dominant traits are denoted by capital letters
Recessive traits are denoted by lower case letters
Elephant traits are denoted with "a"
Mammoth traits are denoted with "b"

>Pure Bb & Bb / 75% chance of dominant trait & 25% chance of recessive trait

BB Bb
bB bb

>50/50 splice Aa & Bb / 50% chance of genetic anomaly (two different dominant or recessive genes together), 25% chance elephant dominant, and 25% chance of mammoth dominant

AB Ab
aB ab

>50/50 splice all dominate elephant AA & Bb / 50% chance genetic anomaly & 50% chance elephant dominant

AB Ab
AB Ab

>50/50 splice all dominate elephant & all recessive mammoth AA & bb / 100% chance elephant dominate

Ab Ab
Ab Ab

>worst case scenario- 50/50 split all dominate (or recessive aa & bb) AA & BB / 100% chance genetic anomaly

AB AB
AB AB

OT- I'm all for genetic modification, cloning, genomic sequencing, and genetic R&D in general but what would the consciences be if we re-introduced an extinct animal into an ecosystem that has long forgotten their existence? This particular application of the science is concerning to me.

Sarge034:

LifeCharacter:
Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but isn't the simple solution to the problem of putting more mammoth into the hybrid just doing the process over again with the mammoth DNA and the new hybrid's eggs, and then repeating until you're satisfied?

That's not how genetics work. Every time you fertilize an egg there is a percent probability that one characteristic will be chosen. An elephant trait could be dominant while a trait all mammoths had could be recessive. No amount of added mammoth DNA, or RNA, will ever bring that recessive trait out.

Just going to quote you since it's the most relevant but doesn't the egg donor usually have their genetic material removed from the egg and replaced by whatever is meant to replace it? So while the egg would be from an Asian elephant the genetic code that dictates the babies chromosomes would all be mammoth.

TheSYLOH:

Bke:

What I was getting at with this whole thing is that when a species is killed off it's usually for a good reason. When you bring back "obsolete" biological factors into the environment you're not actually helping the progress of evolution. And usually the only reason I can see we would bring something back is because we feel bad that its gone... now while our compassion does have to factor in I do feel its detrimental to the aforementioned progress.

Consequently from my standpoint, unless we found something useful that the animal in question provides, we can't really justify bringing it back. And even then it's tenuous as most of the time our interference will ensure that whatever we resurrect will get a decent foothold, which will, in turn, deny the ecological niche the resurrected animal occupies to other creatures that might come to occupy it through natural evolution.

Again I'm all for doing this, really I chastised someone for saying we shouldn't if you read back. Just remember that once we do it we will need to decide where we draw the line. Resurrecting every animal whose DNA we get our mitts on might not be the best idea.

Ok so bringing back the mammoth is not "helping" evolution?
You know whats not helping evolution?
Saving those critically endangered animals.
After all those tigers are obviously not necessary, their so few that they must have a negligible impact.
Pharmacological everything they do is no better than placebo, why are we preserving them?
Why not resume hunting and finish the job?
After all all those insects we regularly try to kill have evolved marvelous resistance methods! Clearly attempting to wipe out everything is the best course.

Now reintroducing the mammoth is clearly a bad idea. Invasive species always are.
But why not have a few thousand of them distributed over various zoos?

thank you, I was trying to sum up a response to Bke, that'll do it I think.
I really don't think the way humans destroy eco-systems and wipe animals out can really be called natural selection

God, I do not hope they plan to put this species in the wild. The world has been fine without then for millions of years. It would be fine to have a park with them in it, but just plopping them in the wild and expecting everything to be nice is not how things go. Polar bears don't have a clue what to do with Mammoths anymore. And the mammoths wont magically know how to survive in a changed earth. All of this seems to be hogwash. And how about they help animals that are becoming endangered instead?

Neverhoodian:
Passenger pigeons on the other hand would still be alive and well today if not for human interference, so I'm all for bringing them back. It's amazing reading accounts about them from settlers. They were once so numerous that flights of them would blot out the sun, sometimes for hours. The noise produced was deafening, and when they roosted branches would sometimes break under their collective weight. It's astounding and more than a little depressing that it was forced to extinction in such a short span of time, and I feel it only right that we try to bring them back to make amends for such wanton exploitation and destruction.

The problem with bringing back the passenger pigeon is that it needed those massive numbers to even survive as a species. By the time it was hunted down to a few million individuals, measures were actually put in place to prevent all the overexploitation of the species, but by then, it was too late. They could only survive as those massive, billion-strong flocks. So if you even manage to make a population of several hundred individuals (might already be tricky to keep sufficient genetic variability) it won't be enough to set up a wild population, very likely not even enough to study behavioural patterns.

I got the thing about the numbers from a popular science book by David Quammen called Song of the Dodo. The broader argument here is that very few species, usually apex predators, can be "brought back" by saving a small number of individuals. Mauritius kestrel was a big success. The wisent maybe even bigger. But it might be too late for the kakapo.

In general, I'm skeptical about those "bring back an extinct species" projects. There's a pretty well publicized initiative in Europe (the Netherlands and Spain in particular) which aims to breed back the aurochs. But assuming we manage to do it... Where do we stablish those wild populations? Will a genetically-aurochs calf living among domestic cows revert to "proper" behavour simply because of the genetic code?

My very broad point is: in most instances, you can't bring a single species back. You need a whole ecosystem. Red deer wreak havoc on the foliage of predator-free Scotland. And to an extent, many ecosystems which were damaged over the past few thousand years survived in a state sufficient to revive them through species management. I'm a big proponent of the rewilding initiatives which aim at restoring ecosystems to a state from a few hundred years back. There is admittedly some romanticism in that and I also believe that a healthy, self-sustaining ecosystem is a value in and of itself. But the ecosystem in which the woolly mammoth lived was drastically different to anything we have in the modern era. Elephants, rhinos, sabertooth tigers and so on were all part of that ecosystem, and North America doesn't have all those other species either. At best this initiative is a possible curiosity, with MAYBE some potential for behavioural research.

And I don't think "we drove them to extinction, we should bring them back" is a sound argument. Under that logic, the mass culling of the bison was also justifiable, because the species thrived thanks to environment changes brough about by humans (hunting off the megafauna included forest-maintaining species, and their destruction led to the massive spread of the praire), not out of its own miraculous ability to breed into huge herds.

Bke:

... from my standpoint, unless we found something useful that the animal in question provides, we can't really justify bringing it back. And even then it's tenuous as most of the time our interference will ensure that whatever we resurrect will get a decent foothold, which will, in turn, deny the ecological niche the resurrected animal occupies to other creatures that might come to occupy it through natural evolution.

See, that's a good argument I can get behind, as we have already seen what kind of ecological havoc a foreign predator can wreak when brought over by humans, only here it's foreign in terms of chronology instead of geography...

But the one thing you said I disagree with vehemently...

What I was getting at with this whole thing is that when a species is killed off it's usually for a good reason.

No. We have wiped out thousands of species and upset countless ecologies for no bloody good reason. Like settlers bringing in domestic cats and dogs in new continents, which started predating upon local fauna. And wiping out species like birds can disrupt the spread of flora, etc. Human-caused extinctions have happened largely because of our population growth destroying habitats. We are reducing biodiversity and genetic diversity, and I hardly think the spirit of natural selection applies to these extinctions.

RyQ_TMC:

But the ecosystem in which the woolly mammoth lived was drastically different to anything we have in the modern era. Elephants, rhinos, sabertooth tigers and so on were all part of that ecosystem, and North America doesn't have all those other species either.

So? They're not planning on putting the Mammoths in North America.

We're bringing back the mammoth to restore the steppe in the Arctic.

Not saying you're necessarily wrong in principle, but that does kind of make it look like you didn't read the article thoroughly.

OT: I approve of this. We need more crazy awesome future science.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here