DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

It is clear that a living mammoth could be possibly seen in the next few years, but just because we can do something, does it mean we should?

 

A silly clip that discusses the various ethical concerns that surround cloning extinct animals, including mammoths.

 

There are obviously benefits to cloning a mammoth. For starters, it will demonstrate the immense advancements humanity has made in technology. A project of this magnitude was not have been scientifically possibly twenty years ago; in fact, many scientists scoffed at the idea of cloning extinct animals after Jurassic Park brought up the conversation. As technology in computers, cloning, reproductive biology, genetics, and the spread of information have increased, so has the likelihood of successfully cloning a mammoth. Resurrecting a mammoth could also right a wrong that prehistoric humans made 11,000 years ago; it would be our obligation to bring back an animal that we drove to extinction. Another benefit of cloning a mammoth is that it be that it would symbolize the positives of globalization. If Russia, a previously communist nation, and South Korea, a democratic nation, are able to recreate a mammoth together, then the mammoth will come to represent how integrated the world is becoming. While slightly superficial, the last major benefit is that it would be amazing to see a real live mammoth. Even Bernard Buigues, a French mammoth hunter for the scientific organization Mammuthus, said “I’m not against having a mammoth in my garden in the future” (Viegas, 2012).

           

Despite all these perceived benefits, there are major concerns that surround cloning a mammoth. Many object to resurrecting this species since mammoths will most likely be forced to live in a zoo. Their natural habitat no longer exists and scientists, zoologists, and ecologists would have to create a controlled environment where the animals can live. Many consider that to knowingly resurrect an animal that would have to live its life in a zoo is cruel (Stone, 2001, 86). Even though a purposed park called Pleistocene Park in Siberia is being tested out, it looks nothing like a proper home for a mammoth; it lacks the necessary ecological diversity and the climate features, including colder temperatures, less carbon dioxide in the air, and less precipitation that was present during the period (Stone, 2001, 175).

           

 

Clip from the Today Show that discusses Pleistocene Park and also shows how scientists did not believe that cloning extinct animals was possible in 1993.

           

Since the habitat no longer exists, mammoths could be a major threat to the world’s biodiversity. Their natural food sources no longer exist naturally so either scientists would have to find a suitable alternative or try to recreate extinct vegetation. It is estimated that a single mammoth weighing about 13,000 pounds would eat 114,000 calories—about 500 pounds of forage—every day. This means that mammoths would eat and drink three out of every four hours of their life and produce a few hundred pounds of a dung day (Stone, 2001, 185).  With the world lacking enough food and water for human populations, how can scientists justify recreating a creature that would take a major toll on our resources. There is also a strong possibility that a mammoth could over graze and cause various types of plants to go extinct.

 

Another concern is that “mammoths, like elephants, were intelligent, highly social animals” (Mueller, 2009). Paleontologists and mammoth experts, like Dr. Adrian Lister, are concerned that since cloning a single animal takes years a mammoth will live alone in a park, zoo, or lab, which is unethical (Mueller, 2009). Supporters of cloning a mammoth may argue that the cloned mammoth can socialize with their relatives, the Asian and African elephants. Unfortunately, it’s unclear how well mammoths would interact with its cousins since they were not in the mammoth’s natural habitat 11,000 years ago.

           

With DNA from only a few mammoths, the cloned mammoth would also be lacking in the necessary genetic diversity to survive. It is not clear what genes would provide ideal physical characteristics and the genes that are being gathered from carcasses may be defective and result in physical or medical deformities. The mammoth could lack a strong enough immune system to deal with the evolved viruses and bacteria that didn’t exist 11,000 years ago. If a disease is what wiped out the mammoth populations, who’s to say that the disease doesn’t still exist or that an even worse disease has evolved? Is it ethical to bring back an animal that could be fated to suffer for the majority of its life?

           

Another controversy is the cost of the project. It is estimated that it would cost about $10 million dollars to resurrect a mammoth (Wade, 2008). This amount does not include the current inflation rate, the cost of multiple attempts to get the clone right (Dolly the sheep took 277 tries), the cost of constructing the necessary habitat with enforcement to prevent escapes, the cost of creating the necessary food, and so much more. With a world-wide recession, resurrecting a mammoth seems like an unnecessary cost that is not essential.

           

The last and biggest concern is that this technology could be utilized to save the world’s current biodiversity. Biodiversity is currently facing the ongoing threat of mass extinctions from industrialization, poaching, and habit destruction and cloning could be utilized to save endangered species (Fletcher, 2008). Their habitats can be easily restored since the environment can already support these species. In fact, many find the idea of cloning endangered species or recently extinct species more much more appealing than resurrecting an ancient beast that lived over 11,000 years ago (Egan, 2002). Wouldn’t our resources and money be well-spent on conservative biology of current species than Ice Age species?

Clip from 60 Minutes describing how cloning can be used to save endangered animals.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.