Jurassic Park, the Sequel
EmailThe whole premise of "Jurassic Park" was preposterous on its face. Making clones of long-dead animals? We know better. But now a Japanese team has taken — let’s say, a step. They report, in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that they cloned mice from bodies that had been kept frozen for 16 years. It’s not bringing life back from the Jurassic, just the 1990s, but still, it’s something most biologists would have thought impossible. The abstract of the paper is HERE. "As all of the cells were ruptured after thawing, we used a modified cloning method and examined nuclei from several organs for use in nuclear transfer attempts," write Teruhiko Wakayama and his colleagues at the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, Japan. "Using brain nuclei as nuclear donors, we established embryonic stem cell lines from the cloned embryos. Healthy cloned mice were then produced from these nuclear transferred embryonic stem cells by serial nuclear transfer." Edyta Zielinska at The Scientist in Britain went looking for reaction. "If you had asked me five years ago" if cloning a frozen animal were possible, said Peter Mombaerts of the Max Planck Institute of Biophysics, "I would have said ‘no way.’" It’s only going back 16 years, not 160 million, but the researchers say there might be benefits to their work. They talk of protecting endangered species, now, before too much time passes. (Image courtesy National Academy of Sciences-PNAS.)
TechBytes (02.10.12) 
Steve Jobs' FBI File: Bomb Threat? 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Just dont clone George W Bush (shudder)
Posted by: leftofblue | November 4, 2008, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
Ned
But I assume they were still putting the nuclei into egg-cells of living surrogates? That seems to be the key. At least the way I learned it, the nuclei doesn’t seem to have all the information necessary to create an organism. The rest of the egg cell is critical, and the species of course have to match. So they can make clones of living species, and they might even be able to use an elephant as surrogate for a mammoth, but I doubt either an ostrich or a crocodile could foster a dinosaur.
Posted by: jock59801 | November 4, 2008, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm
I feel this goes against human nature to clone animals, people, or any living organism for that matter.
Posted by: Jessica | November 4, 2008, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm
From Ned Potter–
Hello, Jock. Yes, as I understand it, you’re right that living cells were used as hosts. There is mitochondrial DNA, among other components, that was not transferred. But the expectation–until now–was that the DNA from a dead cell would decay very quickly. Which makes this intriguing.
Posted by: Ned Potter | November 4, 2008, 6:59 pm 6:59 pm
Cool! Bring back the woolly mammoth and sabertooth tiger.
Posted by: Elizabeth | November 4, 2008, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm
o rite and i think it is very interesting that the japanese have discovered a way to re-animate or clone the dead or fossilized.
Posted by: banana man | November 4, 2008, 7:59 pm 7:59 pm
maybe they can bring back Mao Zedong.
Posted by: jeff m | November 4, 2008, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm
I think this is wonderfull. Just think, this technology could possibly lead to bringing back extinct animals that may have the missing components or clues to cure cancer, aids etc.
Posted by: Brannon | November 4, 2008, 11:08 pm 11:08 pm
jock59801 why do you feel as this is against human nature?
is bring back history plus this could be a key benifit is clone live stock to make our food chain allot better.
I support cloning, if you have something perfect why not replicate it?
Posted by: joe johnson | November 5, 2008, 2:31 am 2:31 am
Mao was not Japanese. He was Korean.
Posted by: Punk | November 5, 2008, 3:00 am 3:00 am
Number one resurrected animal should be Tasmanian tiger (from 1930s), not some prehistoric animals like mammoth.
Posted by: Alex | November 5, 2008, 5:54 am 5:54 am
i want a wooly mamith for
a pet
Posted by: joshy woshy | November 5, 2008, 6:37 am 6:37 am
“So they can make clones of living species, and they might even be able to use an elephant as surrogate for a mammoth, but I doubt either an ostrich or a crocodile could foster a dinosaur.
”
The odds of getting enough intact dinosaur DNA to act as a template for a chimera (ala Jurassic Park) is not promising.
But as a technique for preserving endangered species and reviving more recently extinct species, it has promise.
But megafauna preserved by glaciation? It might be technically possible, it would excite the popular imagination, but a living mammoth would be a curiosity, a creature that could never live free in the wild without major disruptions to the modern ecosystem.
On the other hand, if somebody manages to bring back the housecat-sized ancestors of modern horses, they are going to make a bundle in the pet market. “Why yes, honey, you CAN have a pony”!
Posted by: Yukon Sam | November 5, 2008, 10:40 am 10:40 am
Mao is chinese with korean ancestors and japanese blood flowing through his veins descended from the Khans…….nice!
This is amazing discovery, but has to be restricted obviously. Pros and Cons are all over on this subject. We are created in the imagae of God if you belive in that, therefore, as time goes on, no one knows where our brains will take us. Again with Restriction!!!
Posted by: hmmm | November 5, 2008, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm
Isn’t Ted Williams still frozen somewhere? Could this process possibly be used to clone humans in the same manner? Ethics aside of course.
Posted by: Charlie Allen | November 5, 2008, 8:45 pm 8:45 pm
What is human nature?
I think it’s made up, so kinda hard to go against it…..
Posted by: privatemale | November 6, 2008, 1:41 am 1:41 am
While this is great for cloning, I think it would be highly iresponsible to clone anything that has gone extinct. It would be cool to see these creatures alive, but they’d spend their entire lives as exhibits. They’d never be able to be reintroduced into the wild, as other animals, have evolved to take their place, and to survive better than they have.
Posted by: Lawrence | November 6, 2008, 8:32 am 8:32 am
“Could this process possibly be used to clone humans in the same manner?”
While there’s no reason why it couldn’t be, there’s also little incentive to do so. Humans are strongly shaped by their education and socialization; there may be genetic limits on what you are physically or mentally capable of, but your genes don’t determine your destiny. You could clone Ted Williams, and the result would look like Ted Williams, but he would probably end up being an accountant.
If there comes a point in the future where we can read, record and implant thoughts and memories from brain to brain with an extremely high degree of fidelity, then human cloning becomes a path to immortality. Then again, by that point we may well have the capacity to design human bodies to specification.
Whether it will ever be possible to retrieve thoughts and memories intact from cryogenically frozen humans (all of whom have been declared legally dead) is undetermined.
But that’s all pure science-fiction at this point. We’re making strides at understanding how the brain stores memory and what determines personality, but there is a long way to go before we can “scan” this stuff and transfer it to a clone body (or if you prefer, an android one).
Posted by: Yukon Sam | November 6, 2008, 9:29 am 9:29 am
On the issue of extinct animals living in today’s world, every single one has special circumstances. The Carilina Parakeet could very well thrive in it’s native range today, provided we don’t have someone with a gun hiding behind every bush. As far as mammoths, there’s a “Pleistocene Park ” in Russia that is currently providing habitat to revenant critters from that age, such as tigers, tarpan, and others in the works. Mammoths have been speculated over.
Thylacines (Tasmanian wolf) would be a welcome sight to many in it’s former native range, though sheep farmers might not like sharing space with them. Wolves have returned to the some of the lower 48, you may recall. I think there are far more limiting factors at this point, to resurrecting the extinct, than “where would they live?”.
Posted by: taxirynchites55 | November 6, 2008, 11:40 am 11:40 am
Elizabeth
The Japanese do intend to try it on a mammoth. I think that this was part of devoloping a technique.
Posted by: Quietman | November 6, 2008, 11:49 pm 11:49 pm
Lawrence
It would be the most pampered animal in the world. Maybe a few so that it will have company.
Posted by: Quietman | November 6, 2008, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm
So if we can get the DNA structure from a dinasour we can place it into a chicken(closest living relative to a dinasour) and it could possibly produce a fertil offspring of a dinasour?
Posted by: PFitz | November 7, 2008, 8:36 am 8:36 am
“So if we can get the DNA structure from a dinasour we can place it into a chicken(closest living relative to a dinasour) and it could possibly produce a fertil offspring of a dinasour?”
Probably not. Birds are likely too far removed genetically from dinosaurs to serve as viable hosts. (Yes, I’m using the weasel words “probably” and “likely”, because any number of unlikely things have been achieved in the field of genetics). Further, there’s no known reservoir of dinosaur DNA to work from. Crichton’s fictional extraction of significant amounts from insects trapped in amber makes for a good story, but it’s just a story.
But… what might be a more productive approach would be to compare the DNA structure of a number of closely related species of birds or reptiles and try to piece together a common ancestor. You could then create a DNA template of that common ancestor using recombinant techniques, and it might be closely related enough to be hosted by one of the decendant species. Rinse and repeat through enough generations, and you might get back to some species of dinosaurs, eventually.
But they would likely be a best-guess approximation of a dinosaur. Dinosaurs didn’t evolve into something else, for the most part, they went extinct. Their branches of the tree were broken off, and any unique genetic heritage on those branches is lost. Trying to recreate those branches would involve a lot of guesswork and trial-and-error.
Posted by: Yukon Sam | November 7, 2008, 10:34 am 10:34 am
Cloning animals that have gone extinct from direct actions of man would be great. Such as the Yangtse River Dolphin, and the Thylacine for example. There are thousands of animals like this. Fish, amphibian, insect, bird, reptile and mammal. Also, in bringing back animals that used humans as food could bring back fears that no human has experienced in hundreds of thousands of years.
But for animals that died out because of global disasters not related to man, since man wasn’t even around, would be cool, and a great way to study them, and it would pose a great threat to current animals living now.
Posted by: Lawrence | November 7, 2008, 10:51 am 10:51 am
Lawrence
Agree completely. It is desireable for zoological exibition and study but not at all advisable for reintroduction to the wild.
Posted by: Quietman | November 7, 2008, 6:08 pm 6:08 pm
Yukon Sam
Actually acrocodilian would be a closer choice.
Posted by: Quietman | November 8, 2008, 1:18 am 1:18 am
sorry, I meant to address that last comment to PFitz and Yukon Sam both.
Posted by: Quietman | November 8, 2008, 1:29 pm 1:29 pm
There is another possibility that has gone unmentioned. Reverse engineering. WHile we still do not know enough at this point we may eventually be able to back-track through evolution to the common ancestors at various points of divergence IF the genetic code has not been lost from the genome. Chickens with teeth was the first example of turning back on a specific trait. We may eventually be able to turn off the evolved traits and turn back on the ancient traits to see the original ancestors. This means we would not have to find intact DNA, just enough for verification.
Posted by: Quietman | November 9, 2008, 11:05 am 11:05 am
we really have entered the clone age. Makes you wonder what’s next. Where is right or wrong. I’m all for cloning. The potential for improved health and even protecting endangered species or bringing back some sadly missing from our ecosystems. But would we bring back Neanderthal man ? Would a women want to carry such a child ? Wher do we draw the line ?
Posted by: andy | November 12, 2008, 4:44 am 4:44 am
Andy
Why would we want to bring back a human?
Posted by: Quietman | November 12, 2008, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
I am a geneticist and I crossed a chicken with an inguana and the chicken died giving birth to a T rex. so yes it is possible to get an extinct animal from a living close relative. I have done it many times. They call me Dr.Freakinstein.
Posted by: tanya | November 12, 2008, 1:30 pm 1:30 pm
Andy, I agree. It is height of arrogance and narcissism to think the future would want a human back from the dead, and consequently, more humans on the planet.
Posted by: zod | November 13, 2008, 10:46 am 10:46 am
Man should not being doing this – man always thinks he knows best, but he never does – he always thinks he is smarter than nature…but he never is, in the end…
Posted by: RalphF | November 13, 2008, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm
the sky is the limit. I remember a special on TV that involved researchers wanting to find the flu virus that killed so many in the infamous 1918 flu epidemic. They found it on the remains of some people dug up in a graveyard in the permafrost regions (I forget what country). Havent heard anything on it since. Thats the kind of thing we need to be playing with, dead viruses. Im beginning to think the theme of many of those horror flicks may one day come true. The oldest one that comes to mind is the “Andromeda Strain”. Its all relative.
Posted by: tendergroins | November 18, 2008, 5:58 pm 5:58 pm
In related news, another scientific team has has reconstructed the genetic sequence of a wooly mammoth found frozen in the Siberian permafrost.
Our techniques are not quite at the point of being able to clone one, even with the full sequence.
But stay tuned.
Posted by: Yukon Sam | November 20, 2008, 11:01 am 11:01 am
now if the germans find this kind of technology they would end up revivng hitler or they would bring back one of their famous musicians like bach or beethoven so it can be used for good or bad either way we should test it out more than once
Posted by: pman | February 23, 2009, 4:32 pm 4:32 pm
Lets bring back walt diney. Hes Frozen Somwhere right?
Jokes aside this is a morvoles technique that need to be worked on .
Posted by: James | May 2, 2009, 2:48 pm 2:48 pm