Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

43,000-Year-Old Woolly Mammoth Remains Offer Strong Chance of Cloning

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the looking-forward-to-mammoth-steak dept.

Science 187

EwanPalmer sends a followup to a story from last year about a team of Siberian scientists who recovered an ancient wooly mammoth carcass. It was originally believed to be about 10,000 years old, but subsequent tests showed the animal died over 43,000 years ago. The scientists have been surprised by how well preserved the soft tissues were. They say it's in better shape than a human body buried for six months. "The tissue cut clearly shows blood vessels with strong walls. Inside the vessels there is haemolysed blood, where for the first time we have found erythrocytes. Muscle and adipose tissues are well preserved." The mammoth's intestines contain vegetation from its last meal, and they have the liver as well. The scientists are optimistic that they'll be able to find high quality DNA from the mammoth, and perhaps even living cells. They now say there's a "high chance" that data would allow them to clone the mammoth.

cancel ×

187 comments

Can't wait (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481977)

For mammoth burgers.

Re:Can't wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482309)

I am more excited about the prospect of a new super villain for Spiderman. One unfortunate jab in the lab, and spidey gets to fight Mr. Mammoth.

Sexist much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482647)

Why not Madam Mammoth?

Re:Sexist much? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482737)

What does your mom have to do with this?

Re:Can't wait (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#46482663)

Screw that, I want some of those cool tusks for the front of my truck.

Re:Can't wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482799)

Would you like mammoth size Cola with those?

Re:Can't wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483135)

You mean what movie theaters call "medium size"?

Get going already! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481979)

I'll prepare the mountable lasers!

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481989)

Cloning a long extinct species. Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

I mean, just look at the devastation non-native species are causing in various nations. They certify they can contain these creatures forever and ever?

"LONG extinct"? Hah. (4, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 4 months ago | (#46482151)

A few thousand years isn't "long".

Compared to the other changes humans wreak over decades, bringing back mammoths would barely cause a ripple.

"Contain these creatures forever and ever"? We already extinguished them once, without even the help of gunpowder. If you're looking for things to worry about, you can do much better than this.

Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. (5, Interesting)

Tx (96709) | about 4 months ago | (#46482227)

Yeah, considering how many species humans have (directly or indirectly) wiped out, developing the skills to bring some of them back might be prudent.

" We already extinguished them once, without even the help of gunpowder."

However I believe the current thinking [slashdot.org] is that mammoths are not amongst our victims, and were wiped out by natural climate change instead.

Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about 4 months ago | (#46482379)

If mammoths were wiped out by climate change, then resurrecting the species in a modern climate would be bringing it into an environment that it was not evolved to handle.

Not only does that seem rather pointless, but it also strikes me as arguably sounding like animal cruelty. I'd suggest that the scientific discoveries we might make by doing this may be heavily outweighed by the ethical considerations involved.

This matter really feels one of those times when scientists should be reminding themselves that just because we *CAN* do something does not necessarily mean that we *SHOULD*.

Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. (4, Informative)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 4 months ago | (#46482915)

If mammoths were wiped out by climate change, then resurrecting the species in a modern climate would be bringing it into an environment that it was not evolved to handle.

Not only does that seem rather pointless, but it also strikes me as arguably sounding like animal cruelty. I'd suggest that the scientific discoveries we might make by doing this may be heavily outweighed by the ethical considerations involved.

This matter really feels one of those times when scientists should be reminding themselves that just because we *CAN* do something does not necessarily mean that we *SHOULD*.

Mammoths survived until at least 2500 years ago on Wrangel island where that particular population was probably wiped out by modern humans so at least the habitat question is a non issue.

Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. (4, Interesting)

BergZ (1680594) | about 4 months ago | (#46483065)

I was going to make a very similar comment to yours, but the more I thought about it the more the mammoth seems like a good test case.

It seems to me that we're just starting the testing & experimentation phase of resurrection technology. To be cautious I think we should start testing this new technology on extinct species that meet both of the following conditions:
(1) Are unlikely to escape captivity (ideally test species should be unable to survive outside specially designed enclosures).
(2) Are big, lumbering, and slow breeding. Even if such a species somehow escapes captivity (and manages to survive in the wild) we can still hunt them down and eliminate them.

So far as I know mammoths meet both of these conditions making them good test subjects for resurrection technology.
"... bringing [the mammoth] into an environment that it was not evolved to handle" - That's a feature, not a bug!

Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482277)

A few thousand years isn't "long".

Compared to the other changes humans wreak over decades, bringing back mammoths would barely cause a ripple.

"Contain these creatures forever and ever"? We already extinguished them once, without even the help of gunpowder. If you're looking for things to worry about, you can do much better than this.

Compared to the changes the Chicxulub meteor wrought in just seconds, humans are small-scale pikers.

I'd bet quite a few orders of magnitude more species went extinct long before humans existed.

Does that mean we shouldn't be careful about how we impact the environment? Of course not.

But damn, can we drop the reflexive, unthinking, childish HUMANS IZZ TEH ALL-POWERFUL EVUL!!!

Humanity is nowhere near all-powerful. In fact, we're really, really wimpy compared to what the universe can do on it's own.

And to say humanity is evil is just nihilistic brain-dead misanthropy. Are cats evil when they play with mice? Would a nearby supernova that happened to sterilize Earth be evil?

Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#46482703)

Would a nearby supernova that happened to sterilize Earth be evil?

From our point of view, yes.

Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482323)

Wool finds a way!

Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. (2)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 4 months ago | (#46482449)

Could we bring enough back with a diverse enough gene pool to actually repopulate a reserve?

Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. (1)

grumpyman (849537) | about 4 months ago | (#46482545)

Wait a minute - who's the "we" that extinguish them?

Re:"LONG extinct"? Hah. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483191)

Me and a couple of grad students at the applied time-travel facility.

Re:Hmm (4, Interesting)

SecurityGuy (217807) | about 4 months ago | (#46482239)

Sure. Woolly mammoths are pretty big. One might even call them mammoth. If one gets out, it won't be that hard to find.

Besides, we shouldn't be talking about creating a population of these things yet. Lets create one and see how that goes. It's not like it's going to run off into the forest and sprout more.

Re:Hmm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482401)

It's not like it's going to run off into the forest and sprout more.

I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482315)

Cloning a long extinct species. Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

I mean, just look at the devastation non-native species are causing in various nations. They certify they can contain these creatures forever and ever?

"Non-native" to what?

Species have been migrating from place to place from the day they existed.

Re:Hmm (2)

DrXym (126579) | about 4 months ago | (#46482475)

My understanding is that mammoths are fairly conspicuous creatures, what with them being giant hairy elephants.

Re:Hmm (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 4 months ago | (#46483123)

shh don't talk about the hairy elephant in the room

Re:Hmm (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#46483265)

Giant hairy elephants, or just hairy elephants?

Re:Hmm (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | about 4 months ago | (#46483121)

We could save the elephants. Mamoth ivory will make regular one completelly lame and so 20th century.

Re:Hmm (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 4 months ago | (#46483155)

I mean, just look at the devastation non-native species are causing in various nations. They certify they can contain these creatures forever and ever?

Notice that it's small animals being invasive while the megafauna are often endangered even on their home ground?

Megafauna move slowly, breed very slowly and are easy to spot. So it's pretty easy to hunt and kill them at a rate much faster than they can breed.

I think I've seen this movie before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481991)

Ok, the movie I saw was full of ancient reptiles/amphibian hybrids that have since been redefined as birds,

More importantly, I suddenly crave a mammoth steak (hold the fur).

Re:I think I've seen this movie before (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 4 months ago | (#46482365)

Mammoth fur - ugh... Imagine saber tooth tiger hail balls...

Shouldn't they start out small first? (4, Interesting)

wcrowe (94389) | about 4 months ago | (#46482017)

I suppose the idea of cloning a 43,000-year-old mammoth would be the kind of thing that would attract funding, but from a purely scientific standpoint, wouldn't you start out small and try to clone, say, a dead chicken first, just to see if the process actually worked?

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 4 months ago | (#46482097)

Its not as if they cloning lab gets charged by the pound. If they've got better preserved mammoth DNA then clone that - the final size of the animal is sort of irrelevant.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about 4 months ago | (#46482283)

I didn't mean literally the size of the animal. What I meant is that there is only going to be so much 43,000-year-old DNA to go around. You wouldn't want to waste it on a process that didn't work. You'd want to start out small, with a dead, frozen chicken that had been on ice for a year or so. Extract its DNA, and then see if you could get a live chicken out of it.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482655)

Didn't they already do this... with a sheep [wikipedia.org] ?

Also that mentions pigs, bulls, deer, horses... so.. there you go.. there's your dead chicken.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#46482837)

Why do so many people keep missing the point that Dolly wasn't dead when cloned? Or frozen?

Also, I didn't realize Dolly was named after Dolly Parton because the cloned cells came from the mammary gland of the donor.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#46482871)

Also, directly to wcrowe's point, from that article:

Making cloned mammals was highly inefficient (Dolly was the only lamb that survived to adulthood from 277 attempts - although by 2014 Chinese scientists were reported to have 70-80% success rates cloning pigs[21])

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#46482125)

I suppose the idea of cloning a 43,000-year-old mammoth would be the kind of thing that would attract funding, but from a purely scientific standpoint, wouldn't you start out small and try to clone, say, a dead chicken first, just to see if the process actually worked?

We already know cloning works. Welcome to the 1990s. Sorry about your internet connection.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about 4 months ago | (#46482147)

I know they have cloned live sheep. Has anyone cloned a frozen, dead animal yet? That I haven't heard about.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482197)

I think they've been trying this on Diane Feinstein, with no success

Re: Shouldn't they start out small first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482523)

To clone Diane Feinstein they need a corpse - not a skeleton.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (4, Informative)

qazsedcft (911254) | about 4 months ago | (#46482395)

It doesn't matter that the donor is dead. The process of cloning [wikipedia.org] involves taking out DNA and inserting it into another cell. All that matters is that enough DNA can be collected for a complete organism. Freezing is completely irrelevant as even human embryos used for in-vitro fertilization are routinely frozen.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#46482739)

I don't think they freeze the embryos, do they?

Just the separate zygotes.

Not sure it really matters either way, but some people get squeamish about such things.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

Mashdar (876825) | about 4 months ago | (#46483163)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
They use additives to prevent formation of ice crystals, but the temperatures are certainly what you would call freezing, and the preserved objects (embryos, here) are solidified.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#46483213)

Good to know.

I'm no scientist (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about 4 months ago | (#46483275)

but I would imagine you try an elephant first, and then a more recently frozen elephant, and go from there...

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 4 months ago | (#46482133)

They've been able to achieve cloning for over a decade now.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about 4 months ago | (#46482303)

With a dead extinct animal? No. The closest thing is an extinct ibex cloned in 2009 (hardly "a decade"), and it only lived for a few minutes --- not exactly a success in my book.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

laejoh (648921) | about 4 months ago | (#46482137)

Noooooo, that would give a completely different meaning to http://www.catb.org/jargon/htm... [catb.org] , poor ESR would have to rewrite the jargon file!

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 4 months ago | (#46482153)

I'm pretty sure Korea or something successfully cloned a drug sniffing dog multiple times. Oh, then there's Dolly of course.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482181)

There is no point in cloning a chicken. We already _know_ what chicken tastes like.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482207)

I suppose the idea of cloning a 43,000-year-old mammoth would be the kind of thing that would attract funding, but from a purely scientific standpoint, wouldn't you start out small and try to clone, say, a dead chicken first, just to see if the process actually worked?

They're not exactly able to pick and choose amongst extinct animals with enough well-preserved DNA to clone.

I'd suspect that because a mammoth is, well, mammoth it's more likely to have well-preserved DNA somewhere in the carcass.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

wiredog (43288) | about 4 months ago | (#46482241)

People have been cloning mammals for 20 years now.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#46483271)

People have been cloning live, unfrozen mammals for 20 years now.

FTFY.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (4, Interesting)

qazsedcft (911254) | about 4 months ago | (#46482259)

We have been able to clone several species already. That's not the problem. The problem is that you need a surrogate mother for the embryo and the closest we have is the African elephant, which separated from the mammoth a long time ago. From TFA it seems they are already working on cross-species clones but they are still a long way off.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

bigpat (158134) | about 4 months ago | (#46482841)

The problem is that you need a surrogate mother for the embryo and the closest we have is the African elephant, which separated from the mammoth a long time ago.

Seems there are enough examples of using surrogate mothers of a similar/related species to think that if you can create a viable embryo then the surrogacy might be successful.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 4 months ago | (#46483117)

We have been able to clone several species already. That's not the problem. The problem is that you need a surrogate mother for the embryo and the closest we have is the African elephant, which separated from the mammoth a long time ago. From TFA it seems they are already working on cross-species clones but they are still a long way off.

That may seem like a victory but it's really just scratching the surface. Once you have cloned a mammoth what then? To establish a viable population you need genetic diversity, a minimum founder population of 50-100 individuals that should preferably be as distantly related as possible. The up side of a project like this is that if we can solve the problem do cloning a mammoth it we can start harvesting the DNA of many individuals of species like tigers and rhinos that are about to be become extinct thanks hedonistic nouveau rich assholes with more money than sense who keep poachers and exotic pet traders in business. Then, at a later date when Gene Roddenberry's vision has come true and mankind has grown up (not holding my breath) we will be able to recreate viable populations.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482267)

...

Are you seriously reading Slashdot and unaware that they already know they can clone animals?

Really?

Dolly.

Look it up.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482297)

You are assuming that they never cloned anything dead before. A lot happens in labs... before they come to the outside showing a cloned sheep

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482601)

We've already cloned a cat and a few other small animals. Don't care to look up what the largest animal cloned to date is...

I think it will be interesting to see this proceed, especially given when this mammoth lived when compared to human position at this time of its death. 40000+ years ago we were what, just crossing the land bridge into what is North America? Compare this mammoth to those of Wrangel Island, believed to be the last mammoths to have existed on the planet some 4-5000 years ago. There would be a fairly distinct genetic difference between these two mammoths and timeframes, if we were to clone one from each. Though, afaik, cloning from the more recent mammoths on Wrangel Island isn't possible.

It'll will be interesting to see this going forward, and what exactly we learn from it.

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482613)

I suppose the idea of cloning a 43,000-year-old mammoth would be the kind of thing that would attract funding, but from a purely scientific standpoint, wouldn't you start out small and try to clone, say, a dead chicken first, just to see if the process actually worked?

Well, considering we can already clone dead chickens, wouldn't it be more prudent to deep-freeze one for 43,000 years and THEN see if we can create a clone of a chicken, using an embryo from something chicken-like, but not chicken-actual?

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483029)

considering we can already clone dead chickens

Source?

Re:Shouldn't they start out small first? (1)

nucrash (549705) | about 4 months ago | (#46482651)

I have to admire the technology behind cloning, but to clone a dead chicken is one thing, but cloning some dead mammal would be a better example. Whether this be a rat or something of that nature, we need to consider what we are doing. How do we gestate that clone? Japan is working on technology to carry a human fetus to term, this should be adapted to larger creatures.

Yes, I know a seeded comment says that size is irrelevant, but I have to counter that point and say, "Size is very important."

If we spend millions on a clone and have no way to carry the thing to term or care for it when it's out of the womb, we just blew more money than the idiots who programmed the Mars Climate Orbiter.

The Crichton Diet (4, Interesting)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 4 months ago | (#46482025)

Free-range grass fed mammoth might still taste like elephant, so don't get your hopes up.

Re:The Crichton Diet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482063)

Too bad, and here I got my hopes up for a nice Mammoth steak

Re:The Crichton Diet (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about 4 months ago | (#46483017)

I don't know. These things were basically hunted to extinction. So they may be pretty delicious or it might just be that a Mammoth hunt was a comparatively easy way to get the whole tribe fed all at once, with left overs to store.

Just do it already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482077)

Everyone keeps talking about cloning a mammoth. Can we have a kickstarter to just buy a scientist some elephants and have them get started already? Enough with the careful measured approaches. We need some ballsy elephant killing science.

Re:Just do it already (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 4 months ago | (#46482145)

Haven't you ever heard the song by "Loverboy?" Mammoth and Elephant DNA just won't splice.

Did they do Mammoth Carpaccio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482135)

Preservation state like something dead for six months....
Less than a good cured ham.

So we can assume its edible?

Re:Did they do Mammoth Carpaccio? (1)

deadweight (681827) | about 4 months ago | (#46482213)

AFAIK frozen mammoth meat HAS been eaten before by sled dogs, if not people. One thing going for this is the close relatives still living for the surrogate mother. I guess the down side is daddy elephant is going to take one look at the baby and bith-slap mommy until she runs away to join the circus.

Evil spirits (1)

jgotts (2785) | about 4 months ago | (#46482165)

I predict that the cloned animal will be possessed by either the Devil or some other evil spirit.

Re:Evil spirits (1)

VIPERsssss (907375) | about 4 months ago | (#46482199)

Calm down, Stephen King.

Cue Jeff Goldblum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482175)

I just can't wait to hear some of the dim witted rants that will arise from this article.

But what does it taste like (2, Funny)

u38cg (607297) | about 4 months ago | (#46482183)

Hot pan, salt, pepper, enquiring minds want to know.

Re:But what does it taste like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482321)

Hot pan, salt, pepper, enquiring minds want to know.

they must have tasted really good, since our ancestors ate them all..

Re:But what does it taste like (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 4 months ago | (#46482393)

Tasted like chicken obviously, which would explain why they all got eaten.

Apparently not that good: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482727)

Mammoth meat was "tested" on several occasions in history, and apparently it's not that good:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/2555/prehistoric-meat-up

Re:Apparently not that good: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483215)

It's been a while though that someone tried eating one that hasn't been dead for millenias.

Mammoth Burgers! Mmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482185)

Beef is good bison is ok, but Mammoth, that's a meal...

Off topic (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#46482221)

Off topic, but if you're into making stuff like I am... the only legal way to get ivory anymore (besides an insane permitting process) is tusks dug up from mammoths in the arctic. I suspect that if they start re-introducing them to the wild, that will become illegal to... which would be super lame. Also, the ivory found in bogs and such usually absorb minerals and stuff making it very unique looking.

Re:Off topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482307)

Why don't you just 3D print stuff?

Re:Off topic (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 4 months ago | (#46482359)

Well once we get good at this we COULD just grow the tusk part, in 3' by 3' cubes. Then you could glue a bunch of them together to make a minecraft-style ivory castle.

They didn't stop to think if they should... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482235)

Is Jeff Goldblum available for comment?

Seems logical (3, Insightful)

Kokuyo (549451) | about 4 months ago | (#46482271)

We can't keep elephants and rhinos alive, so let's clone us some mammoths...

Re:Seems logical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482353)

Um, they do a pretty good job keeping the elephants and rhinos alive at my local zoo, not sure about yours.

Mod parent stupid. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482791)

I don't know how this got modded insightful. Are you implying that we shouldn't be doing the latter because of the former? Because, pardon my French, but that's fucking retarded. These two things are so unrelated that it's hard to even come up with a decent car analogy, but I'll try. What you're suggesting is something along the lines of "we can't keep people from crashing their cars, do we really think it's a good idea to build space ships?" It's just absurd.

Global Warming! (2)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 4 months ago | (#46482349)

Well, obviously the melt of the ice age and all the the global warming problems since then were started off by Woolly Mammoth farts and now they want to bring them back?

The end game (4, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | about 4 months ago | (#46482373)

They need to clone dwarf mammoths and sell them as house pets.

JasonAW3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482741)

Let's clone dwarf humans and put them in a new Hobbitat.

Dr. Ian Malcolm (1)

CheeseyDJ (800272) | about 4 months ago | (#46482417)

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
-- Dr. Ian Malcolm

Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482705)

Right. The one question not asked about cloning extinct animals - WHY?????

Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482713)

"Life... finds a way"
-- Dr. Ian Malcolm

Therefore, it's going to happen anyway. Might as well speed up the process.

Re:Dr. Ian Malcolm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483139)

Life finds a way except for the 9,999 out of every 10,000 species that are extinct.
 
Just another "science" movie used to vilify science.

kidney stones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482425)

Why would it have kidney stones in it's liver?

But why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482657)

Maybe it's the "Because we can" mentality that they do this. Where will the woolly mammoth go? Are they going to use these clones to upgrade the running of the bulls?

On second thought, lets do this and televise it.

Treasure trove of information (1)

RoccamOccam (953524) | about 4 months ago | (#46482763)

Will we be able to ask it questions about life 40,000 years ago? This is very exciting.

Why? (1)

plazman30 (531348) | about 4 months ago | (#46482921)

Other than the coolness factor, what is the point to cloning an animal that nature made extinct? Is Siberia really incomplete without pachyderms?

Clone the Mammoth? Half the deal (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about 4 months ago | (#46482969)

I'm equally interested in cloning its last meal.

Living Cells? (1)

hllclmbr (998978) | about 4 months ago | (#46483211)

"The scientists are optimistic that they'll be able to find high quality DNA from the mammoth, and perhaps even living cells." Is this a real possibility; 43,000 living eukaryote cells? It seems like cellular respiration would have ceased long ago, or is the claim that they were somehow preserved in some kind of stasis?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...