Should endangered species be cloned?

[blike]

Should endangered species be cloned?

[Nevermore]

I think so. However that doesn't mean that we can be carless with the enviornment.

[Rekkr]

Cloning won't mean a thing if the animal still doesn't have a habitat. There must also be some kind of genetic diversity. A population cannot be replentished with clones because clones are so close genetically.

[Skye]

Generally I don't think it's a great idea. There are limited funds and cloning isn't cheap. In most cases an animal embryo still needs to develop in the womb, and this is going to be a limiting factor in rates of population growth. On the other hand, artificial fertilisation can be very useful, as sperm can be transported between distant zoos more easily than animals.

[YT2095]

a good combination of Both, If they can iron out all the bugs in the clones (replicative fading, and the arthritis and stuff).

[Primarygun]

When I first noticed this title, I thought it should.

However, the point you mentioned, " People will not conserve habitat with much effort if endangered animals are cloned.", this makes me need some more time to think about it.

[Aspirin]

IMHO.....No

Clearly becouse of the fact that endangered species can stop beeing indangered if we....Humans....stop killing them

 

Also if we cloned endangered specia we would most likely destroy the already fragile eco-system

 

Furthermore it would freak me out to know some clones are roming in the woods. And in our time why would someone clone some animal, ofcourse for the first test to research the cloning proces, but later people would just stop caring about animals and start cloning humans for most likely military purposes.

 

But that's just me

[ecoli]

I'm more worried about genetic diversity. Cloned animals have much less diversity, and it is well known that less diversity in a population makes for a much less stable population. What if a new environmental factor arises that wipes out all the cloned animals...the population is screwed.

[5614]

Cloning species is a great way to combat dwindling numbers... but we should also ask why their numbers are so low and try to something about that too (ie. not via cloning, ie. by improvining their habitat, stop hunting etc)

[Mokele]

I'm with ecoli on this; the clones would be almost useless in terms of genetic diversity, which is a huge problem for many endangered species.

 

For instance, I know that recently a zoo had to destroy an entire clutch of healthy, viable eggs of an endangered crocodile species. Why? Because the pair that produced the eggs is *already* overrepresented in the remaining gene pool, and further representation will be detrimental to the species as a whole.

 

It's not just numbers, it's genetic diversity. Cloning, by definition, cannot add to this diversity in a cost-effective way (especially compared to simple selective breeding to ensure maximum diversity).

 

Habitat is also a large piece of the problem, and more pressing than cloning. For instance, the Chinese alligator is nearly extinct in the wild, less than 2 dozen individuals. Captive population: over 20,000, and they breed like reptilian guppies. But we've got nowhere to *put* them; all their habitat has been turned into rice paddies and the farmers hate them because they eat the ducks (also the rats, but people are rarely sensible about such things).

 

IMHO, cloning endangered species is a waste of time and money, a misplaced effort.

 

Mokele

[Sayonara]

I voted no. Protecting biodiversity is the critical element, not duplicating randomly chosen genetic representations in a certain species.

[mcoy]

I voted no. Protecting biodiversity is the critical element, not duplicating randomly chosen genetic representations in a certain species.

 

well, there are a number of organisms that cannot be saved by simpy protecting them. so their tissue samples (or orvary/sperm) cells are taken for future cloning (e.g. an endangered cow that has only a handful of them left, and another endangered specie of a primate...~~discovery channel).

[ku]

Remember that extinction is part of nature.

[Sayonara]

well, there are a number of organisms that cannot be saved by simpy protecting them. so their tissue samples (or orvary/sperm) cells are taken for future[/b'] cloning (e.g. an endangered cow that has only a handful of them left, and another endangered specie of a primate...~~discovery channel).

Which is all well and good, but fairly pointless if we cannot or will not address the problems that caused their decline.

 

 

Remember that extinction is part of nature.

While this is perfectly true, I think the thread is supposed to refer to species that humans have jostled out "unfairly" (the idea that we'd clone any endangered species seems unlikely, due to the expense and difficulty of the task.)

It's no secret that our activity has caused catastrophic damage to biodiversity all over the planet.

[LilSciWizGal]

Hey! I think cloning both a good idea & aq bad idea. Why I think it'a a good idea is, because it will pevent endangered species, like the California Condor, etc. Why I think it's a bad idea is, because why should we clone endangered species, if their habatits are being distroyed; they'll have no where to live. But that my opinion, both the pro & Con on Endangered Species Cloning!

[AzurePhoenix]

With all the controversy over designer-babies, I think that combining cloning with this process might help alleviate the genetic-diversity issue (mix in some genes from this close cousin, then a little from this, etc, etc) Sure, the species would be diluted a little, but as long as the genes used were carefully monitored, its a necessary risk. BUt yeah, the main problem is habitat. Conserve, then clone. Well, to do so, we first must raise a bloody coup against modern society, build a better, healthier humanity, and kill off the excess.

 

Coupe, construct, kill, conserve, and clone. The Five Kuhs

[eco_metal33]

After reading all your messages, I have come to the conclusion that the cloning of endangered animals must be done as a last resort. This does not mean that all research into cloning should be stopped. Changing the endangered mindset of the people is the need of the hour.

[vrus]

Although the technology of cloning is very advanced and I think it is cool, call me double-sided or call me a hippocryte, but I think cloning goes against nature and disobeys the laws set for us. So I think cloning should not be used.

[AzurePhoenix]

Happens in nature all the time. Ever spray for aphids? Been to certain parts of the Red Wood Forest? Seen a whiptail lizard? Anyone here have a twin? Clones.

It's our responsibility as the most capable species on the planet to do everything in our power to restore the natural balance. Clone non-avian dinos? No way, their time is gone, but the thylacine, the dodo, the moas, Haasts's Eagle? We should do everything in our power to save the creature's we've hurt, and if ever possible (however unlikely), do our best to reestablish species that we've actually driven into oblivion.

[Aardvark]

I voted no. Protecting biodiversity is the critical element, not duplicating randomly chosen genetic representations in a certain species.

 

That would only be a good reason if it was an 'either, or' scenario.

 

Cloning will be a useful tool in conjunture with habitat protection and reclaimation as well as playing some part in preserving and adding to biodiversity. Relic DNA samples will enable biologists to reintroduce individuals into depleted populations in order to enhance the species genetic diversity.

[Sayonara]

That would only be a good reason if it was an 'either, or' scenario.

Not really. For any given scenario there is going to be a trade-off range, rather than a trade-off point. You're dealing with dynamic systems that have either a sliding or oscillating point of equilibrium.

 

 

Cloning will be a useful tool in conjunture with habitat protection and reclaimation as well as playing some part in preserving and adding to biodiversity. Relic DNA samples will enable biologists to reintroduce individuals into depleted populations in order to enhance the species genetic diversity.

For most species of the type we look to saving, the best you could hope for in terms of genetic diversity within a species would be cloning out individuals between isolated populations. Which creates a whole new set of problems.

 

 

I think you have interpreted my response as an argument against using cloning to save "a species". In certain cases this could be made to work, and it is not what I was attempting to argue against. What I am saying is that as a conservation tool, cloning is a backwards strategy.

[Aardvark]

Not really. For any given scenario there is going to be a trade-off range, rather than a trade-off point. You're dealing with dynamic systems that have either a sliding or oscillating point of equilibrium.

 

I don't think we are looking at a strictly zero sum system here. Funds which might be available for cloning are not necessarily going to be coming out of the same pot as those used for habitat protection and reclaimation.

 

 

For most species of the type we look to saving' date=' the best you could hope for in terms of genetic diversity within a species would be cloning out individuals between isolated populations. Which creates a whole new set of problems.[/quote']

 

I was thinking along the lines of individuals being cloned from old tissue samples. For example DNA extracted from old musuem exhibits. It would be possible to clone individuals from these samples who were representative of larger populations than currently exist and therefore likely to be genetically valuable.

 

A sample from a Tiger killed 200 years ago of a now much diminished sub species facing a genetic bottleneck could be highly useful in increasing the genetic diversity of current populations.

 

I think you have interpreted my response as an argument against using cloning to save "a species". In certain cases this could be made to work, and it is not what I was attempting to argue against. What I am saying is that as a conservation tool, cloning is a backwards strategy.

 

If cloning were to simply be used to simply bulk out numbers of a diminished species then i would agree with you. But i can see circumstances when using old tissue samples could be a progressive way of increasing genetic diversity.

[Sayonara]

I don't think we are looking at a strictly zero sum system here. Funds which might be available for cloning are not necessarily going to be coming out of the same pot as those used for habitat protection and reclaimation.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean; we may have crossed purposes. I'm talking about the population dynamics.

 

 

I was thinking along the lines of individuals being cloned from old tissue samples. For example DNA extracted from old musuem exhibits. It would be possible to clone individuals from these samples who were representative of larger populations than currently exist and therefore likely to be genetically valuable.

That would be a cunning way to go (assuming, of course, it was being used in a strategy that made sense).

 

One obvious problem is that DNA recovered in such a fashion is going to be very difficult to get viable clones from, and we have enough problems doing it with freshly squeezed DNA.

 

 

If cloning were to simply be used to simply bulk out numbers of a diminished species then i would agree with you. But i can see circumstances when using old tissue samples could be a progressive way of increasing genetic diversity.

Yes, it almost certainly can be. However it will in nearly all cases be counter-productive in both the long run and the wider ecological system.

 

An example of a stumbling block: in what way is it better to introduce genetic representation into a species with no idea of how it will affect the distribution or disposition of the next generation, than it is to allow the current genetic representation to run its course?

[YT2095]

this all seems to be about Animals, I hope some voted with endangered plant species in mind too.

[coquina]

What about in vitro fertilization instead, using a close species as the surrogate mother. I think there is one type of zebra that is very close to extinction. Why not harvest eggs and sperm and impregnate the common zebra with the embryo.

 

However - this would probably only work in cases where there is another close species.