Re - Cloned mammoth in the offing. Perhaps Neanderthals next.
Robert Clark
wrote:
> Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million.
> By NICHOLAS WADE
> Published: November 19, 2008
> Scientists are talking for the first time about the old idea of
> resurrecting extinct species as if this staple of science fiction is a
> realistic possibility, saying that a livingmammothcould perhaps be
> regenerated for as little as $10 million.
> The same technology could be applied to any other extinct species from
> which one can obtain hair, horn, hooves, fur or feathers, and which
> went extinct within the last 60,000 years, the effective age limit for
> DNA.
> ...
> "The full genome of the Neanderthal, an ancient human species probably
> driven to extinction by the first modern humans that entered Europe
> some 45,000 years ago, is expected to be recovered shortly. If the mammoth can be resurrected, the same would be technically possible for
> Neanderthals.
> "But the process of genetically engineering a human genome into the
> Neanderthal version would probably raise many objections, as would
> several other aspects of such a project. “Catholic teaching opposes
> all human cloning, and all production of human beings in the
> laboratory, so I do not see how any of this could be ethically
> acceptable in humans,” said Richard Doerflinger, an official with the
> United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
> "Dr. Church said there might be an alternative approach that would
> “alarm a minimal number of people.” The workaround would be to modify
> not a human genome but that of the chimpanzee, which is some 98
> percent similar to that of people. The chimp’s genome would be
> progressively modified until close enough to that of Neanderthals, and
> the embryo brought to term in a chimpanzee.
> “The big issue would be whether enough people felt that a chimp-
> Neanderthal hybrid would be acceptable, and that would be broadly
> discussed before anyone started to work on it,” Dr. Church said."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html?_r=1&ref=science
>
> Though Neanderthals were undoubtedly thinking creatures, the ethical
> questions about cloning humans might be muted somewhat by recent
> studies that suggest that Neanderthals were genetically distinct from
> modern humans:
>
> Neandertals Not among Our Ancestors, Study Suggests.
> By Sarah Graham
> May 14, 2003 in Archaeology & Paleontology
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=neandertals-not-among-our [abstract]
>
> For info on the capabilities of the Neanderthals see:
>
> Once We Were Not Alone.
> by Ian Tattersall
> Paintings by Jay H. Matternes
> Scientific American, January 2000
> http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langevo/earlyhominids.pdf [free full text]
>
> Another reasoning creature to interact with might provide us clues
> about how to communicate with other intelligent species in the SETI
> search.
>
This NY Times article reports on the further decoding of the
Neanderthal genome:
Scientists in Germany Draft Neanderthal Genome.
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: February 12, 2009
"Possessing the Neanderthal genome raises the possibility of bringing
Neanderthals back to life. Dr. George Church, a leading genome
researcher at the Harvard Medical School, said Thursday that a
Neanderthal could be brought to life with present technology for about
$30 million."
...
"When the full Neanderthal genome is in hand, could it be made to
produce the living creature its information specifies? Ethical
considerations aside, Dr. Pääbo said, Neanderthals could not be
generated with existing technology. Dr. Church of Harvard disagreed.
He said he would start with the human genome, which is highly similar
to that of Neanderthals, and change the few DNA units required to
convert it into the Neanderthal version.
"This could be done, he said, by splitting the human genome into
30,000 chunks about 100,000 DNA units in length. Each chunk would be
inserted into bacteria and converted to the Neanderthal equivalent by
changing the few DNA units in which the two species differ. The
changed lengths of DNA would then be reassembled into a full
Neanderthal genome. To avoid ethical problems, this genome would be
inserted not into a human cell but into a chimpanzee cell.
...
"Dr. Church acknowledged that ethical views on such an experiment
would vary widely. But bringing a Neanderthal to birth, he said, would
satisfy the human desire to communicate with other intelligences."
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/why-not-bring-a-neanderthal-to-life/
Perhaps Dr. Pääbo should recall that famous statement of Arthur C.
Clarke:
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something
is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
I also like the statement Dr. Church makes in the article that echoes
what I said before that bringing back the Neanderthal could give us
some understanding about communicating with other intelligences.
Here's another NY Times article that's in favor of the idea:
Why Not Bring a Neanderthal to Life?
By John Tierney
February 13, 2009, 11:30 am
"So why not do it? Why not give Harvard’s George Church the money he
says could be used to resurrect a Neanderthal from DNA?
"I’m bracing for a long list of objections from the world’s self-
appointed keepers of bioethics, who must see this new Neanderthal
issue as a research bonanza. Think of the conferences to plan, the
books to publish, the donors to alarm! I can imagine an anti-
Neanderthal alliance between the religious right and the religious
left, like James Dobson and Jeremy Rifkin — what I like to call the
holier-than-thou coalition opposed to new biological technologies.
"But I’m afraid I can’t see the problem. If we discovered a small band
of Neanderthals hidden somewhere, we’d do everything to keep them
alive, just as we try to keep alive so many other endangered
populations of humans and animals — including man-biting mosquitoes
and man-eating polar bears. We’ve also spent lots of money
reintroducing animals into ecosystems from which they had vanished.
Shouldn’t be at least as solicitous to our fellow hominids?"
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/why-not-bring-a-neanderthal-to-life/
The ethical problems of bringing back a Neanderthal are explored in a
classic Isaac Asimov story, though in this case by time travel, "The
Ugly Little Boy":
The Ugly Little Boy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_Little_Boy
Bob Clark
Remus Shepherd
> "This could be done, he said, by splitting the human genome into
> 30,000 chunks about 100,000 DNA units in length. Each chunk would be
> inserted into bacteria and converted to the Neanderthal equivalent by
> changing the few DNA units in which the two species differ. The
> changed lengths of DNA would then be reassembled into a full
> Neanderthal genome. To avoid ethical problems, this genome would be
> inserted not into a human cell but into a chimpanzee cell.
When I started reading this paragraph, I thought at first that they
intended to make this a gene therapy for infecting an adult human being
or chimpanzee.
A contagious disease that changes its victims into Neanderthals...
now *there's* a story idea. I'm seeing a cross between '28 Days Later'
and 'Clan of the Cave Bear'.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
fake-name
> In rec.arts.sf.science Robert Clark <rgrego...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "This could be done, he said, by splitting the human genome into
>> 30,000 chunks about 100,000 DNA units in length. Each chunk would be
>> inserted into bacteria and converted to the Neanderthal equivalent by
>> changing the few DNA units in which the two species differ. The
>> changed lengths of DNA would then be reassembled into a full
>> Neanderthal genome. To avoid ethical problems, this genome would be
>> inserted not into a human cell but into a chimpanzee cell.
>
> When I started reading this paragraph, I thought at first that they
> intended to make this a gene therapy for infecting an adult human being
> or chimpanzee.
>
> A contagious disease that changes its victims into Neanderthals...
Apparently the largest expense in such projects is that for building the
large black slab...
Bryan
> On Nov 21 2008, 12:23 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million.
The idea is an interesting one - bringing back extinct species. But
the one thing these articles miss is that the accuracy of the genomic
information we have for both mammoths and neanderthals is not very
good - there is an error rate of ~1:10,000 bases; meaning there are
thousands of sequencing errors in each of the genomes. In addition,
we only have the sequence of one individual from each species; hardly
enough to bring back a stable population.
So it may be done, one day. But it'll cost far more than $10 million
- you'd be looking at about $10mil just to get 1 or 2 individuals
complete genome, error-free. Never mind cloning costs, and whatnot.
One day it'll probably be done, but for $10mil today - forget it.
Bryan
Martha Adams
news:fde7c312-875a-48ed...@p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Bryan
===================================================
$10 million may be a guess, but I'm alright with it. That is because of
how the cost has dropped to develop an individual human genome. We are
looking at an emerging technology here; and over not so very much time,
researchers will understand how the individual genome components work.
I look for them to be able to correct errors like I cna oops can see and
correct errors in text here.
*I don't know* about those people who respond to new ideas in biology
with, they say, fear and fright. I think those views are the visible
aspect of mental health issues they have. They should look at nature
some time; live on a farm of 150 acres and two horses for a few years.
Better yet, they could seek treatment.
I expect reproducing Neanderthals and mammoths and etc to be difficult
and messy, with errors, which is what you learn from. I hope to live
long enough to see some of this done.
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.astro.seti 2009 Feb 18]
Carey Sublette
"Bryan" <bryans.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fde7c312-875a-48ed...@p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
*****
Actually to create "a Neanderthal" is much easier than to create "an exact
clone of this particular Neanderthal" (that is, once we can do human cloning
at all).
Although sequencing a Neanderthal individual may create a genome with many
errors, we aren't sequencing this genome from scratch. The Neanderthal has a
genome very nearly identical with modern humans (which is why Paabo can do
it - he has a complete map of all the genes already). All the Neanderthal
sequencing needs to pick up are the genes that differ from modern humans,
which is a much easier job.
Robert Clark
> "Bryan" <bryans.spam.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Good points.
The report of the resurrection of a recently extinct ibex might
support the feasibility, though it is important to note the cloned
animal survived only for minutes, likely because of errors in the
genetic sequencing:
Hello again, Pyrenean ibex: Can cloning resurrect an extinct species?
Feb 3, 2009 05:07 PM in Biology
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=pyrenean-ibex-restoring-species-fro-2009-02-03
Bob Clark
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
>
> Bob Clark
Perhaps prior to "resurrecting" a species, the future genetic workers
will program a super
complete computer model to see if DNA code will generate a successful
creature.
It would also seem likely such a resurrection would involve a complete
synthetic
recreation of the chromosomes and genes basically for scratch.
And the children said, "Are we there yet?"...................Trig
Martha Adams
news:e1b139ef-c83c-41b2...@v35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
I see two points in the above text. The first is it illustrates the
"emerging technology" process. I doubt anyone here ever caught a ride
in a Wright flyer, or would much want to. Modern commercial aircraft
are different from that old machine, and it's evolution of the
technology that makes the difference. I'd look for the same effect in
new emerging technologies.
The second point I noticed boils down to, molecular biology seems to
have seamlessly merged into computational biology. I think "Trig"
reaches too far in his construction of this. His computational biology
model points in a necessary direction, but I think the crucial
experiment is the life experiment, and it's going to stay that way. I'd
look for a small number more of failed new ibexes; and then
...*success.*
And it's interesting to think about where, over the long run, we are
headed with this extinct-species reconstruction work. I can see it as a
step, not an end. I can see the next step beyond recovery as starting
from scratch to develop an *entirely new* life form. A living thing
with no connection to past evolution but if you track it back to its
origins, you find human made computer files and reagent bottles. Yet it
is something we can place well up in the evolutionary "tree." Such
building from scratch has already been done with viruses; but someday,
maybe we can do it with *humans* even. (Won't *that* stir up the
Religious Wrongs! However, little chance it might make them think.)
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.astro.seti 2009 Feb 19]
Flo
Alas, I wish I could live long enough to see a cloned Neanderthal and/
or =
mammoth, but I am afraid that is not possible. I am not morbid about
=
death until I think about things like this.