I don’t think de-extinction of animals just for the heck of it like woolly mammoths is a good idea, but what about de-extincting animals like the Dodo? Where humans caused them to disappear? If that’s even possible, is it a good idea?
Dodo de-extinction
A company is giving it a try. I can see the merit in trying to return such animals to existence. It’s a possible pro to undue damage done by people.
There are still cons and risks, but it seems more reasonable than just doing something for the novelty like woolly mammoth de-extinction. What would be the pro of remaking a mammoth? It would be fun and cool?
What do think? Should we de-extinct the Dodo bird if we can?
Here’s the article that brought this to mind. A de-extinction company is trying to resurrect the dodo, MIT Technology Review. Is there any article that Antonio Regalado writes that I don’t want to read?
The woolly mammoth de-extinction seems kind of questionable in motivation. There also has been talk about producing mammoths without tusks. If those pushing this de-extinction are going to make other changes too then at some point are the end results not even really mammoths?
Recommended reads
- Enhancer–promoter interactions can bypass CTCF-mediated boundaries and contribute to phenotypic robustness, Nat. Gen.
- Programming multicellular assembly with synthetic cell adhesion molecules, Nature.
-
Graded mesoderm assembly governs cell fate and morphogenesis of the early mammalian heart, Cell.
- Vito Imbasciani and the ‘Nonpareil’ California State Stem Cell Agency, California Stem Cell Report.
- Former Harvard researchers lose PNAS paper for reusing data, Retraction Watch. The article notes problems with numerous other John Blenis papers too. The retraction notice itself details a remarkable number of instances of data reuse in just the one PNAS paper.
- Critical considerations for public engagement in stem cell-related research, Stem Cell Reports.
-
SYF2 suppression mitigates neurodegeneration in models of diverse forms of ALS, Cell Stem Cell.
See Alexandra Petri, WaPo Feb 3, esp. the closing line:
Your scientists were so preoccupied with ‘dodo’ that they never stopped to think ‘don’t-don’t!’”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/03/dodo-extinct-jurassic-park-satire/
But, Paul, if it is private money, why not? Even if the only reason is “cool” (aka, awe)> My biggest concern is animal welfare, for the mothers (in mammals) and the offspring (which might argue for starting with a plant). Any way, Jake Sherkow and I wrote about this nearly a decade ago in Science; I stand by our analysis, which has as a bottom of line: if done carefully, why not?
https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/sherkow-and-greely-2014-1.pdf
Hi Hank. Your piece with Jake is a good one. I confess. The fun, nerdy element of de-extinction has a draw for me. However, I’m not sure that those involved w/the mammoth project will keep animal welfare in mind. Even now after all these years, they don’t really have a good answer for what they’d do with the new mammoths and where. Tusks or no tusks? Circus-like conditions to generate millions in income for the people? I also do think it’s likely that elephants will be harmed one way or another in the process. The case for the dodo is much more compelling.