![]() Through domestication (and the conscious artificial selection of desired traits), humans have been deliberately tinkering with and altering other species’ genomes for millennia. What they mean by this is never really made clear. Similar beliefs have also filtered through into the anti-vaccination movement. Environmentalist activists often play the ‘God card’ in their long-standing hostility to genetically modified/engineered crops. It’s a favorite among many opponents of genetic technology, not just those concerned about de-extinction. One frequently-raised ethical concern is that de-extinction amounts to unnatural and hubristic human interference in nature - ‘playing God’. What are the ethical considerations? Ideological objections: Playing God But so much for the theory of de-extinction. In a process similar to that of conventional agricultural cloning, this newly created ‘synthetic’ genome is then inserted into an enucleated egg from the extant sister species and hence into the womb of a surrogate mother.Īn actual proof of concept occurred in 2003 - the birth of a cloned bucardo or Iberian ibex, a goat-like species that had recently gone extinct (albeit the new-born clone died within minutes). Next, using newly-developed genomic editing tools (such as CRISPR, which emerged at the same time as de-extinction), the targeted genes in the living species’ genome are edited out, with those of the lost species then pasted in their place. ![]() While genetic know-how has vastly increased over the past decade, the basic theoretical approach to ‘de-extinction’ remains the same. The extinct organism’s genome, sequenced from preserved remains, is first compared to that of a closely related extant species - the mammoths’ genome with that of the Asian elephant, say, or the thylacines’ with the dunnart, a living near-relative - and the functional genetic differences identified. Let’s examine both the science of resurrecting extinct species and the ethical controversies that continue to swirl around the idea of bringing long-dead creatures back to life. SIGN UP How to clone a mammoth (or a thylacine) Plus critics are saying that all the money chasing the de-extinction dream would be better spent on species facing extinction in the here and now.īut other things have shifted in the last ten years, at least in the background behind the attention-grabbing headlines - changes that perhaps tip the balance more strongly in realizing de-extinction’s potential. What hasn’t changed is enthusiasts’ wild optimism (investors have bought into the hype that thylacines could be resurrected “ in less than six years ”) … and most naysayers’ persistent pessimism. Its backers are putting serious money where their mouths are, funding projects to revive two additional species - the thylacine (or Tasmanian tiger) and the dodo. Then in a flash, the de-extinction fantasy fad faded, the science hill to climb appearing too steep to take the movement seriously.įast forward to 2023 and de-extinction is suddenly hot again. Touched off by Jurassic Park comparisons, all the talk (and it was mostly talk) was of bringing back woolly mammoths and passenger pigeons, often within ludicrously short timeframes. Ten years ago it burst into mainstream popular life : the possibility of resurrecting extinct species. Is the Genetic Literacy Project a corporate ‘front’? GLP responds to ongoing false allegations from US Right to Know / Organic Consumers Association / SourceWatch / Baum Hedlund / Church of Scientology.GLP Integrity Policies: Privacy, Conflicts of Interest, Verification, Fact-Checking Standards and Corrections.Mission, Financial Transparency and Governance.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |