VERY thought-provoking read that raises a lot of questions ~ I made a note to watch at least parts of this day-long TEDx DeExtinction event on March 15th via the free "Webcast" link noted below ~ more "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Wednesday, Mar 6, 2013 04:06 PM CST
Should cloning be used for “de-extinction”?
Scientists are working on ways to revive species like the wooly mammoth, raising thorny ethical questions.
By John R. Platt

This article originally appeared on Scientific American.

At some point in the next decade, if advances in biotechnology continue on their current path, clones of extinct species such as the passenger pigeon, Tasmanian tiger and wooly mammoth could once again live among us. But cloning lost species—or “de-extinction” as some scientists call it—presents us with myriad ethical, legal and regulatory questions that must be answered, such as which (if any) species should be brought back and whether or not such creatures could be allowed to return to the wild. Such questions are set to be addressed March 15 at TEDx DeExtinction, a day-long event in Washington, D.C., organized by Stewart Brand’s Revive & Restore project. Brand previewed the topics for discussion last week at the TED2013 conference in Long Beach, Calif.

Scientists are actively working on methods and procedures for bringing extinct species back to life, says Ryan Phelan, executive director of Revive & Restore and co-organizer of the TEDx event. “The technology is moving fast. What Stewart and I are trying to do with this meeting is for the first time to allow the public to start thinking about this. We’re going to hear from people who take it quite seriously. De-extinction is going to happen, and the questions are how does it get applied, when does it get used, what are the criteria which are going to be set?”

Cloning extinct species has been tried before—with moderate success. An extinct Pyrenean ibex, or bucardo, (Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica) was born to a surrogate mother goat in 2009, nine years after the last member of its species was killed by a falling tree. The cloned animal lived for just seven minutes. Revive & Restore itself has launched a project to try to resurrect the passenger pigeon, which went extinct in 1914.

Revive & Restore has already held two private workshops for geneticists and others involved in cloning and conservation to share information on current de-extinction projects, techniques and ethics. The upcoming TEDx gathering will be the first public event to widely discuss the same topics. Like all projects organized by Brand’s Long Now Foundation, transparency is a central issue for Revive & Restore (after all, Brand is the man who famously said, “information wants to be free”). “For our organization, the idea of being able to provide this information or the exposure of these ideas, it’s just a way of starting the dialogue,” Phelan says.

Although next week’s meeting will mostly focus on resurrecting lost species, Phelan says the same cloning technologies also have a lot of potential to help species that are currently endangered. “I think we’re going to be able to apply these technologies to species on the brink,” she says. “To me, that’s why I’m most excited about this. How are these technologies going to be used to help improve genetic bottlenecks and things like that?”

Of course, conservation budgets around the world are already strained, and most endangered species do not have any direct conservation funding devoted to them. Wouldn’t focusing on cloning technology take away from those scarce conservation funds? “My knee-jerk reaction to that is simply that it should not be either-or, but that it should be an ‘and’ question,” Phelan says. “I don’t think there’s a certain amount of dollars that can only be spent for helping animals on the brink. I think that these things are additive, and that the challenge is ensuring that conservationists and others that are involved in wildlife are aware of these technologies and can move in directions where they can apply them.”

Speakers at TEDx DeExtinction will include George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School; Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford Law School; and Oliver Ryder, director of genetics at the San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation and Research. Tickets are available for the live event, which will also be Webcast for free.

What do you think? Should scientists try to clone and resurrect extinct species? Is it worth the cost or the effort? Do you want to see wooly mammoths walk on Earth again or watch flocks of passenger pigeons black out the sky? Are you encouraged by these technologies’ potential to keep critically endangered species such as the northern white rhino from going extinct? Please let us know in the comments.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/can_cloning_bring_back_extinct_species_partner/

I can see some serious "balance of nature" problems.

The first question it raises yet again for me is one I've asked often: just because we can do something, should we? ~

Chaos, your "... what's the point of bringing anything back if humans are just going to exploit/neglect/abuse them again?" is a winner ~

Sooz

Another solid issue ~

Sooz

Scientists are actively working on methods and procedures for bringing extinct species back to life

Would this work for Republicans?

We have disrupted the "circle of life" enough already with our concrete jungles and housing that some species are gone, while others are over-populated. This would just exacerbate that. We don't have enough natural habitat to support many of the species now in existance. Meanwhile we've screwed around with preditors like the wolf who control over-population in elk etc, all for the sake of "progress" or to maintian our carnivorous diet.

Here is a prime example of that:


Group wants Alberta to bring back limited grizzly bear hunt

EDMONTON -- The Alberta Fish and Game Association wants the province to bring back a grizzly bear hunt in areas where it says there are too many of the animals.

The government suspended the hunt in 2006 over fears of dwindling numbers and declared grizzlies a threatened species in 2010.

The association, which represents about 24,000 hunters and anglers, has passed two resolutions calling for a new, limited hunt.

"It is only where there is a harvestable excess of grizzly bears -- where they are causing problems, where they are spreading out beyond their territory because of no hunting anymore," association president Gord Poirier said Wednesday.

"There still has to be protection for the grizzly bears where the population is low."

Poirier said Alberta could allow a limited hunt without removing grizzlies from the threatened species list.



Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/group-want ... z2MsaroIxz


Grizzly bears help control over-population of other species, as well as help "groom" the forest since they are omnivors.

I absolutely just love the term "havestble excess"

I really don't see any problem with doing this particularly since its clear that in many cases humans were a primary cause of species extinction in the first place. That's certainly true of passenger pigeons and possibly true of mamoths. What, from any moral perspective, is the difference between trying to prserve a species that is on the the road to extinction, like the siberian tiger, and reviving one that has already gone extinct, like the tasmanian tiger?

Of course the issue does get a little more complex if you talk about cloning something like a neanderthal ...

Of course we might "exploit" them, but then the issue is the exploitation, not the "DeExtinction". What is the issue with the wolves Chaos?

And BTW "nature" doesn't "decide" to do anything -)

Cattleman, I know I"m not Chaos, but I suggest you research the wolf and Yellowstone park, along with the wolf as a keystone species.

What is the issue with the wolves Chaos?

lol-How much time do you have?

It took many years and much effort to bring them back from the brink. They were delisted and control returned to the states. Now, with no protection, states are free to exterminate as many as they want, however they want.

We're back to gassing pups in dens, leg snares/traps, poisons, chasing them down by helicopter until exhausted and shooting from a distance, killing pregnant and nursing mothers, pack leaders, and unleashing packs of dogs on them-which is really nothing more than organized dogfighting.



http://exposingthebiggame.wordpress.com ... the-right/

Edit to add: These hunters go out of their way to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible on the wolves.
http://www.causes.com/actions/1732988-f ... activities

Jurassic Park, anyone?

Ok chaos, I can understand your disgust, but would it be better if they became extinct? Seems to me its just another case of politicians caving in to a small but vocal group.

That seems to me to be the problem with your "exploit" argument. It actually could be used to provide a justification for pushing animals like the siberian tiger or the white rhino into extinction. After all, if they are extinct we can't exploit them.

I dunno, it'd be interesting to have a real, live woolly mammoth or mastodon walking the earth again. I'm not sure what the benefit would be, other than that.

The world cannot agree about how to maintain the current species. How in the hell can we even think of bringing an extinct species back?

World rejects new protections for polar bears(CNN)

-- A U.S. plan to give new protection to polar bears was voted down Thursday at an international conference on endangered species.

The American delegation at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, had sought a ban on the international trade of polar bear parts. The ban was opposed by Canada, home to the world's largest population of polar bears, as well as Norway and Greenland. It failed with 38 votes for, 42 against and 46 abstentions.

"Unfortunately, politics seem to have overtaken science," Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the head of the U.S. delegation to the Bangkok conference, said in a statement.

Polar bears have been listed under Appendix II of the CITES accords, which applies to species that are not currently threatened with extinction but may face it without restrictions on the trade of their body parts. The U.S. had proposed moving polar bears to Appendix I, which applies to species threatened with extinction and effectively bans trade in their body parts.

The U.S. says that shrinking Arctic ice habitat, a product of a warming climate, puts polar bear populations in a precarious position. Two-thirds of the world's polar bear populations could face local extinctions within 45 years due to habitat loss, the National Resources Defense Council says


http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/world/pol ... rotections

Put it this way Chaos. The issue you seem to be concerned with is the exploitation and inhumane treatment of animals. I'm with you on that, but its a different issue to the question of"DeExtinction".

The morality of exploitation and inhumanity is one thing. It has no direct bearing on the the question of whether or not we should bring extinct species back to life or not. If there are other ways to avoid exploitation then they should be applied in such cases as well.

The world cannot agree about how to maintain the current species. How in the hell can we even think of bringing an extinct species back?

I can't see the logic here. One doesn't preclude the other in any way at all. What has the fate of polar bears got to do with tasmanian tigers or passenger pigeons? In both of those cases they became extinct largely because they were hunted by humans. That can be regulated fairly easily. The polar bear issue is tied up with the whole "global warming" problem and that's a LOT harder (even if its more urgent) problem to deal with.

Ask any ecologist and they will tell you, the greater diversity in an ecosystem the more stable it is.

I agree, except why bring species back if we'll only force them back into extinction?

But why do we have to force them into extinction again?
We know why they became extinct and there is no need to repeat the process.
Take the passenger pigeon. It became extinct because of two major factors. One was habitat destruction, but the other was massive, commercial hunting for food. That can be regulated and controlled.

There are certainly habitats available for many extinct species. Why not have herds of mamoths wndering around on the Siberian tundra or northern Canada or tasmanian tigers wandering in the virtually uninhabited south west of Tasmania?

Don't get me wrong - I agree we don't have to force them into extinction - but based on current trends I don't see this as promising.

I think that depends very much on the nature of the species and the kind of places it inhabits John. In fact, its pretty clear that human activities have been beneficial for quite a few species.

And situations change. For example, millions of passenger pigeons were killed because they were a cheap way to feed slaves. That kind of pressure isn't there any more. And look at the American bison. They were hunted almost to extinction basically for their hides. They made a comeback when that market disappeared.

Yes, different species would likely do better than others, depending on their required habitat and other factors.

I just see the potential for problems if we don't proceed very carefully.

Carefully? Sure!

But what kind of problems?

Ok, say they "grow" a Mastadon. Then they "grow" a mate and improve their fertility. The next thing you know, we have herds of Mastadon.

Then they are being hunted for trophies, for their tusks or hide. Or their numbers increase to the point they are destroying the habitat for dozens of other species.
New laws and enforcement are needed. If that fails someone has to decide whether to destroy the entire species or move them to another area as has been done with the wolves. PETA steps in.

Same with any other extinct species. Nature, despite all of humankind's interference via "progress", finds it's own balance. However that new balance is arrived at after years or decades of painful adjusting.

I think it's reckless and cruel to introduce relatively new species into the mix and into the modern world.

I see tons of potential problems. The planet is struggling to maintain/nurture humans and the current population of plants and animals. The new species may starve to death without their previous required diet. As much as we think we know about these species, I'm sure there are many things we do not know. Things that could be dangerous and make us regret their re-introduction into our world.

And look at the American bison. They were hunted almost to extinction basically for their hides.

Well, that was the claim. The real reason was to starve Native Americans off their tribal lands. Being able to make a buck off the hides was just a fringe benefit.

In both of those cases they became extinct largely because they were hunted by humans. That can be regulated fairly easily.

Just because something can be regulated doesn't mean that it will be regulated for the benefit of the species. Regulations today allow the extermination of wolves for no real reason, because-as you pointed out-those making the regulations are in the pocket of special interest groups. And despite strong regulations against killing elephants/rhinos, etc., poachers are still wiping them out too.

Animals lose all the time because they can't pay off politicians.