| African Wild Cat |
| Extinct Pyrenean ibex |
The
recent New York Times article written by Gina Kolata, “So You’re Extinct?
Scientists Have Gleam in Eye,” discusses the ethics and outcomes of cloning
extinct animals. As of today, the only extinct species that could be
resurrected for a brief amount of time was the Pyrenean ibex, a mammal with the
similar appearance of a large goat. Though the cloned species only lived for a
few minutes, it gave rise to the possibly of bringing back other species that
once roamed the Earth. Furthermore, due to some shortfalls in the process
behind cloning that have yet to be adjusted for, scientists have come up with
more direct methods of de-extinction in lieu of cloning. Cloning needs an
intact cell directly from the species, which can create an issue if one wanted
to bring back a woolly mammoth since the DNA is undoubtedly broken. However, to
accommodate for the lack of intact DNA, one can “compare the DNA of the extinct
species to that of a closely related existing species and then start substituting
chunks of the extinct species’ DNA into DNA in the cells of the existing
species,” (Kolata, 2). This will form hybrid cells, which will then be cloned,
and after some time the animal will have a DNA sequence that is more similar to
the extinct species. A major benefit of de-extinction is that it has the
propensity to increase the biodiversity on our planet. If scientists were able
to make elephants adaptable to the arctic by using parts of the woolly mammoth
DNA, it could benefit the environment. When these prehistoric creatures roamed
the arctic, they increased plant growth by pushing down trees allowing the
native plant life to flourish. Permafrost has a lot of carbon build up, and
these elephants would stomp on the snow, and it would improve the layer of land
(Kolata 2-3). A negative aspect of cloning is that it directly alters laws like
the Endangered Species Act, because developers can now freely destroy habitats
of endangered animals. The issue would not be taken as seriously anymore since
they can say we will pay for cloning the species (Kolata, 3). Although, cloning
might compensate for the destruction of the species through de-extinctions,
questions will still remain regarding whether the cloned animal can sustain
itself in a new environment. Ethical questions brought up by Hank Greely, the director of the
Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University, ask are we
as humans responsible for bringing back animals that we drove to extinction? (Kolata,
3). If resurrecting the extinct species is a means of delivering justice to
these animals, then how far should we go? This then leads to classifying and
prioritizing the extinct species we will first save, allocating sufficient
funds, and finding time for this process. So who then should be responsible for
financing this burden, because not everyone is responsible for their
extinction.
Discussed
in the book, Frankenstein’s Cat Cuddling Up to Biotech’s Brave New Beasts, are
issues related to genetically modified animals as well as cloning. The author, Emily Anthes, writes
about the benefits and harms of using biotechnology. She visits the Audubon
Center for Research of Endangered Species (ACRES) where she conducts an
interview with the reproductive physiologist and director of ACRES, Dr. Betsy
Dresser, to learn more about Dresser’s species survival efforts in repopulating
a number of endangered species. She discusses how cloning can provide many
advantages. For
one, the DNA required for cloning comes from skin cells, which is much easier to
acquire than other processes, and it can transmit the genes of old, infertile,
and dead animals since no feasible sperm or egg is needed (Anthes, 84). Although cloning by itself would never
save a species, Dr. Dresser says, “reproductive technology is an important
piece of the puzzle,” (Anthes, 85). After may tries and losses, she was able to
successfully clone Jazz, a three-year-old African wildcat through interspecies
nuclear transfer. Similar to the resurrection methods for the Pyrenean ibex,
egg donors and surrogate mothers have to be closely related to the species, and
in order to create Jazz’s clone a domestic cat was used (Anthes 86). Both
de-extinction and cloning may provide direct benefits as they can reintroduce
extinct or endangered species back into the environment. At Yellowstone
National Park, the gray wolf had become scarce in the 1920s, and the elk
population vastly increased and there was more destruction to the vegetation.
When wolves from Canada were reintroduced in the mid 1990s, the vegetation grew
back since elk and wolf population were each at maintainable levels (Anthes,
91). This can also be related to reintroducing arctic elephants and the
benefits it can give to the environment. This concept can be described as a
ripple effect, where animal reintroduction can help restore equilibrium within
the environment (Anthes, 90). Another
advantage of cloning is that it conserves animal DNA from species that are not
yet endangered, as it can preserve their cell diversity for future use. Through
frozen zoos, we can store the DNA of many endangered species like birds, so
that scientists can ultimately clone these organisms in the future once they
have developed the appropriate techniques to do so. This can reintroduce
extinct species or increase the population of endangered species. However, many
ethical issues arise from cloning and resurrecting extinct animals. Will reproducing once extinct animals
do more harm than good for these animals? Anthes states that the world is
different from when they roamed the Earth. Taking the woolly mammoth for
instance, the Earth can no longer provide for them in the way it once could
(Anthes, 98). Furthermore, it is stressed that cloning does not substitute for
conservation of species, since it does not address the problems due to “habitat
loss, poaching, pollution, and other human activities that put wildlife at risk
in the first place,” (Anthes, 99). In the future, scientists may be able to
engineer a method that can simultaneously clone an animal without these obstacles.
References:
Anthes, E. (2013).
Nine Lives. Frankenstein's Cat Cuddling Up to Biotech's Brave New
Beasts (pp. 80-101). New York City: Scientific American /
Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kolata, G. (2013,
March 18). So You’re Extinct? Scientists Have Gleam in Eye. The New
York
Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Retrieved October 8, 2013,
extinct-frog-points-to-new-path-and-quandaries.html?ref=cloning&_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment