Print 79 comment(s) - last by Murst.. on Jan 18 at 3:56 PM

Woolly Mammoth  (Source:
A researcher from Japan plans to use a new cloning technique to make this happen

If you thought "Jurassic Park" and the large, reconstructed skeletons seen in museums were the closest we'd ever come to seeing extinct creatures come to life, you might want to think again.  

Akira Iritani, a professor at Kyoto University in Japan, is looking to resurrect the woolly mammoth now that a new cloning technique can make it possible. Not only is it possible, but the woolly mammoth could also be reborn as soon as four years from now.  

The woolly mammoth, which is an extinct species of mammoth that died out 5,000 years ago, has been difficult to clone up until now because nuclei in cells found in the muscle tissue and skin of woolly mammoth's located in the Siberian permafrost were severely damaged by the cold. Many attempts in the 1990's failed because of this. 

In 2008, Dr. Teruhiko Wakayama from the Riken Centre for Developmental Biology developed a cloning technique that allowed him to use the cells of a mouse that was frozen for 16 years to clone a new mouse. This technique has paved the way for new clone-related opportunities, and has inspired Iritani to resurrect the woolly mammoth.  

Iritani plans to use this technique to pinpoint healthy nuclei within mammoth cells in order to extract and use them for cloning.  

"Now that the technical problems have been overcome, all we need is a good sample of soft tissue from a frozen mammoth," said Iritani. 

To obtain the nuclei, Iritani will travel to Siberia this summer to find samples of mammoth tissue or skin within the permafrost. If he is unable to locate these samples, he plans to ask Russian scientists for samples that they have recovered. 

Once Iritani obtains the nuclei, he will insert it into an African elephant's egg cells. The African elephant will be the surrogate mother of the new mammoth. 

"The success rate in the cloning of cattle was poor until recently, but now stands at about 30 percent," said Iritani. "I think we have a reasonable chance of success and a healthy mammoth could be born in four or five years."

Iritani said the process would take at least four years because it will be about two years before the elephant can be impregnated, and then a 600-day gestation period is needed. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Extinction
By chris2618 on 1/16/2011 6:31:38 AM , Rating: 4
"I'm not saying this is cause for bringing back extinct species, just that using the "natural selection" excuse for why you hunted said species to that point isn't a particularly valid one."

Well as we are part of nature then it is natural selection.

RE: Extinction
By mindless1 on 1/16/2011 11:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
Not really, natural selection is a human construct that places us outside the definition of nature, otherwise "nature" would mean "everything", would undermine the meaning of the word entirely.

RE: Extinction
By chris2618 on 1/17/2011 4:33:15 AM , Rating: 2
What do you mean by undermined?

I think people have to realise that we are as big part of nature as any other animal but for some reason just because we think we are special and we remove ourselves.

RE: Extinction
By Murst on 1/18/2011 3:56:16 PM , Rating: 3
Just because humans are part of nature, it doesn't mean that anything we do or don't do can be considered natural selection. If we decide to use up our nukes tomorrow and kill everything bigger than 1cm in size, it isn't natural selection.

Natural selection is more about statistics & trends than single events caused by any organism.

RE: Extinction
By tim851 on 1/17/2011 2:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well as we are part of nature then it is natural selection.

By that definition, war is just natural selection too.

There are people who argue that way, but I find it quite disturbing. It takes morality out of the picture and reverts us back to 'might is right'.

RE: Extinction
By chris2618 on 1/17/2011 4:42:10 AM , Rating: 2
you may not like it but war is natural selection.

The problem with morals is they are not absolute and as some people seem it morals permissible to do harm to prevent harm then we may be "quite disturbing animals".

RE: Extinction
By tim851 on 1/18/2011 1:35:45 AM , Rating: 2
you may not like it but war is natural selection.

It is not.

No variation of genes is gonna affect anybody survivability during a napalm attack.

War is not natural selection like the astroid that is said to have exterminated the dinosaurs wasn't natural selection.

If I shot you in the face I could just pretend "might is right", but as a human being I am capable to reflect on my actions in the context of morality.

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki