Wednesday, August 07, 2024

Op-Ed: Bringing back mammoths – Yes and No with too many caveats for both


ByPaul Wallis
August 6, 2024
DIGITAL JOURNAL

The Steppe mammoth was the first stage in the evolution of the steppe and tundra elephants and the ancestor of the woolly mammoth and Columbian mammoth of the later Pleistocene. — Source: Mauricio Antón (CC BY 2.5)

There’s not a single simple or straightforward issue in the Bring Back the Mammoth proposal. The idea of reincarnating the mammoths isn’t just some sort of scientific fad. This science is far too valuable to avoid. It includes a limitless range of useful biology that could be applied to just about anything living.

The degree of difficulty is also very high, but so what? All new science is tough. It’d be the first time a species had been reborn. At the genetic level, the whole process of reviving the mammoths would be all breakthroughs.

There’s another strong recommendation for mammoths in particular. A vast amount of study, actual tissues, and about a century’s worth at least of analysis can be used to do it.

This isn’t the mammalian version of Jurassic Park. This science already exists, with tissues as blueprint references for the whole animals. Every biological element in the process can be cross-checked.

None of these things makes any of it simple.

For example:

How does an ancient animal survive in what is effectively a different world?

Are they prone to disease and resistant to modern diseases?

How do you do basic maintenance for a huge animal like a mammoth?

What sort of habitat can be provided for them?

What happens if you revive them, and they just die?

How do you maintain a mammoth throughout its growth cycle, let alone for generations?

What do you feed them, and can you deliver that food in sufficient quantities?

What about warming? Big animals and heat are a foreseeable issue.

What sort of range do they need to exist independently?

How do you fix an injured mammoth?

What if anything at all goes wrong, as it may be expected to do?

These are just the basics. These basics can evolve to the point of being a bit queasiness-inducing and much less obvious:

How safe is the huge volume of very tricky and demanding science from bad actors?

Do we get great science followed by McMammoth burgers 5 minutes later? (Admittedly prehistoric burgers would probably be safer.)

Theme parks, anyone? Novelty tends to produce tackiness.

Genetic science often generates “Offshoot science” or more accurately in some cases “Oafshoot science”. Genetic hybrids and similar highly dubious science-swiping options are a possible issue. It has produced some pretty bizarre ideas, like crossing rats and humans, presumably to keep the sociologists happy. Solutions to this issue, if any?

Microbiology is one of the most productive and most contentious, minefield-ridden forms of science. Is there any risk of an intellectual property stampede ripping off the mammoth project science? How do you protect the science? You’d need keystone genetics IP at the very least.

If you’re somehow getting the mystic impression that I don’t trust the commercial environment for good science, let alone for this much critical science, bingo.

Let’s face it – The sheer scale of scientific fraud, plagiarism and disingenuity of recent years is no incentive to be trusting. “Bad actors” is more than a euphemism. Nor is the salivating, money-mad IP sector any great aesthetic relief.

Science is in the midst of its own MESA (Make Everything Sleazy Again) Era. At risk of extinction are talent, real science, and a lot of high-value IP. The mammoth project would be the epitome of a horrific learning curve nobody needs or wants to do.

Let’s hope the science survives its likely environment, too.

No comments:

Post a Comment