The producers of Jurassic Park IV have announced that it is unlikely that they will go forward with the project .

Although our class devoted a sufficient amount of time on the issues on the frontier of genetics -- e.g. synthetic biology, hybrids, and chimeras-- for some inexplicable reason, Professor Herder failed to touch upon a subject incredibly relevant to our day to day world: the potential cloning of mammoths.

Okay, granted this topic is mostly only relevant in the worlds created by Michael Crichton (rest in peace). Nevertheless, what is a bioethics blog without a piece on mammoths?

According to a November New York Times piece, scientists believe that the extinct woolly mammoth could be scientifically regenerated for a mere $10 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html

However, in this month's Time magazine, Stephan Schuster, a prominent scientist with the project, warns us not to get too excited: "What I'm trying to say is that there is a workable route to do that, but it is at this time technically, and cost-wise and time-wise, not feasible." http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1861136,00.html

Nevertheless, the scientific and legal community have been moderately excited about this for a while. Back in 2000, A Stanford Technological Law Review analyzed the legal implications of the matter and concluded there to be no national or international hurdles to pass.

Primarily, the brief is most excited about the project's “potential application to the conservation of the endangered and near-extinct species of our own time.”

The Law Review counter ecological and evolutionary arguments opposed to the project, by asserting that any such problems would be averted by keeping them in captivity.

To the Stanford Law Review's defense, I should add that Jurassic Park III had not yet been released.

Other common points/counterpoints on this issue include:

Con: These animals are extinct. Are we playing God by trying to resurrect them?

Pro: Humans had a role in killing off mammoths.

(Although studies point to climate change being the primary cause, it would be difficult to claim that humans didn't have at least a partial role in that as well. )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.phpaz=view_all&address=115x53524


Con: Cloning will create monsters that will destroy life as we know it.

Pro: Mammoths would actually be incredibly similar to an elephant, although hairier.

Consequently, the mammoth clone would be reared by an elephant mother.

Con: There are no modern environments suitable for these creatures.

Pro: Environmental conditions for mammoths can be replicated.

Con: It would be inhumane.

Pro: Mammoth clones would not be laboratory specimens.

Con: Such an endeavor would release a plague of unknown diseases on Earth.

Pro: There is no evidence of transmissible disease from defrosted specimens.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agenbroad.html

Sadly, as Schuster points out, all this discussion is more or less moot at this point. Unfortunately, the world has considerably more important issues to face and then post about on bioethics blogs.