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?
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?
- Enhancer–promoter interactions can bypass CTCF-mediated boundaries and contribute to phenotypic robustness, Nat. Gen.
- Programming multicellular assembly with synthetic cell adhesion molecules, Nature.
- 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.