FIRST EXTINCT CLONE
CREATED
Charles
Q. Choi
For
National Geographic News
February
10, 2009
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090210-bucardo-clone.html
CREATED
Charles
Q. Choi
For
National Geographic News
February
10, 2009
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090210-bucardo-clone.html
Picture: This graphic shows the bucardo, or a
Pyrean ibex, of when it was not extinct. It is in its habitat, which are the
mountains, since it is related to the mountain goat. The last bucardo was even
killed in its own habitat, hit by a fallen branch.
Summary: Some scientists say that
once an animal is extinct, they are gone forever. However, scientists at the
Center for Agro-Nutrition Research and Technology in Spain are proving the
others wrong. In 2003 these scientists to the frozen skin of a bucardo, a
species that went extinct in 2000, to use the DNA for the cloning experiment.
This was the first time in scientific history that an extinct animal had been
brought back to life, even though the newborn died minutes after its birth. However, the scientists’ hopes were not
crushed. They planned to try cloning another bucardo in 2004 or 2005. David
Wildt, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian’s National Zoological Park in
Washington D.C. told the public to not get excited for a real-life Jurassic
Park to be made anytime soon. He quoted that even if the embryos could be
constructed, there are no appropriate surrogates for long-dead species. The
surrogate mothers for the bucardo embryos were goats. Over 200 embryos were
implanted, but only seven goats became pregnant, and just one bucardo was born.
It died of respiratory failure due to lung abnormalities. Although scientists
had to resort to resurrection, there are actions we can take now to save the
endangered species from becoming extinct. If we can do this as a planet, then
maybe extinct species cloning will not be necessary.
Opinion: I thought cloning was
some sort of fantasy you see in movies and TV shows (Star Wars: The Clone Wars)!
However, since I saw this article my mind was blown because it seems so unreal
to bring something back to life that has died off. I was a little disappointed
though to see that Wildt does not believe we can bring back the dinosaurs (that
would’ve been cool but scary!). In class we learned about biodiversity and how
the extinction of a species can have a huge affect on the environment. By
bringing these species back from the dead can now solve this ecological
problem. In the first place though, it would be more humanitarian to take
action now and conserve the living endangered species. Hopefully then cloning
will not be needed since humans will not have as big of an impact on the
environment as we do now.
Questions:
·
Is
cloning always good for the environment? Why or why not?
·
What
do you think is more difficult, cloning or conserving the environment? Why?
Which do you think is better?
·
If
the clones keep dying, do you think it is morally right to keep trying?
·
What
kind of an impact do you think the reintroduction of extinct species will have
on the invironment? ( Hint: Remember there are new species everyday that we
don’t know about)
I think that is a a really cool discovery for us since we now can revive species which have become extinct. However this seems very similar to stem cell research, which is very controversial. Which brings up a point: if stem cell research is controversial, is cloning animals as well? Do we view cloning animals differently then cloning humans? Also I think it is amazing how 200 embryos were implanted, and only one organism came out. Will it always have that low of a success rate with other animals? Although reviving species sounds like a good thing, I wonder if it would harm the ecosystem when they return to it.
ReplyDeleteAsk 3 Questions:
Is cloning animals similar to stem cell research? Do you think it is as controversial as stem cell research?
If we return extinct species back to their environments, do you think they will harm the environment since they were extinct and the ecosystem has worked a way around being without the organism?
Will the rate of success for the created embryos for other species change, or stay at the rate that was with the bucardos?
Opinion/Reflection
ReplyDeleteI find cloning has a strong “cool” factor that many people are interested in—including myself—and especially when dealing with extinct species. It seems impossible to create a species that, at this point in time, does not exist. It only shows how advanced science has become in the last thirty or so years.
However, cloning may seem simple and not far off, as you find in cartoon movies like Santa Clause 2, but it may not be the simple solution to our biodiversity problems. Actually to recreate an organism that is fit enough to survive the new environment and have the species be large enough to survive over time is a hard thing to accomplish. As the article said, only one bucardo was impregnated from 208 embryos being sent out. To get a fit, large species will take a lot of time and embryos. Also, the problem with diversity has to be considered. The article mentioned, by having the same type of embryo causes no variety in DNA, leading to disease and another extinction. All these complications lead to more problems from the cloning solution. Overall, it may be easier to keep the animals alive than recreating them once they go extinct.
Cloning seems like a nice solution to animals going extinct, but it still seems that there are many advances needed yet before it becomes a real problem solver.
Questions
1) Is cloning something we should pursue or should we let nature be?
2) Can gene diversity be accomplished when cloning an animal?
3) If we recreate these animals, will they not just become extinct again?
4) Will people be divided about the basic morality of cloning or will they come to a consensus?
Opinion/Reflection
ReplyDeleteThis one of the most interesting things I have ever heard of. I mean bringing back animals that were once extinct seems like it was from a sci-fi movie. This shows how advanced our technology ios and what we can do with it. I would support this technology because I would want to see different species that I never have seen before. If we could bring bucardos back from extinction then maybe we could go on to other species that died off long ago such as dinosaurs. But there are some down sides to this such as how it took 200 embryos to get one baby bucardo but even that died within minutes after its birth. I can imagine that cloning is also very expensive to conduct and not worth the cost. I hope that they keep cloning and one day we could bring back even more extinct species.
Questions
1. How much is it to make just one embryo?
2. Will brining back extinct species change the ecosystems negatively or positively?
3. Do any people oppose cloning and if so how strongly do they oppose it?
Opinion/Reflect:
ReplyDeleteWow! I can’t believe that an attempt to revive an animal was even imaginable especially with just a frozen piece of skin. I hear a lot about animals on the verge of or already are extinct and because of that I never think about bringing the animal back as a possibility. I’ve seen sci-fi movies where they bring back or create monsters with weird mixtures but science today seems to be able to get closer and closer to the sci-fi movies now. I think it is great how scientist got to the point of implanting 200 embryos and ending up with one bucardo (even though it died shortly after). This is one step for species and a one giant leap for extinct species. Even though it seems great to try and bring back extinct animals I have to agree that it is much better to try and conserve the living endangered species.
Question #3
I believe it is morally wrong to keep trying to make clones when they keep dying. It seems wrong in the sense of common sense to try and bring back a species when you have to end up killing more species. This is just like saying to get something you have to sacrifice something else. To keep the biodiversity in the world we shouldn’t treat cloning as something good if over done. Cloning too much can possibly be a lead factor to extinction one day if used unwisely.
Opinion/Reflect:
ReplyDeleteWow! I can’t believe that an attempt to revive an animal was even imaginable especially with just a frozen piece of skin. I hear a lot about animals on the verge of or already are extinct and because of that I never think about bringing the animal back as a possibility. I’ve seen sci-fi movies where they bring back or create monsters with weird mixtures but science today seems to be able to get closer and closer to the sci-fi movies now. I think it is great how scientist got to the point of implanting 200 embryos and ending up with one bucardo (even though it died shortly after). This is one step for species and a one giant leap for extinct species. Even though it seems great to try and bring back extinct animals I have to agree that it is much better to try and conserve the living endangered species.
Question #3
I believe it is morally wrong to keep trying to make clones when they keep dying. It seems wrong in the sense of common sense to try and bring back a species when you have to end up killing more species. This is just like saying to get something you have to sacrifice something else. To keep the biodiversity in the world we shouldn’t treat cloning as something good if over done. Cloning too much can possibly be a lead factor to extinction one day if used unwisely.