Mammoth reconstitution

[Dennis Paulson]

Michael Chamberland wrote:

>Several things really bother me about the plan to impregnate elephants with
>mammoth sperm, in an attempt to "bring back the mammoths".
(snip)
>We could create
>our own new genetic curiosities through the judicious application of
>assorted mutagens, but I don't see (or want) that kind of project billed as
>enhancing biodiversity.

Michael, I'm in no way an active advocate for mammoth reconstitution, and
definitely not for "bring back the mammoths," but I could see the point of
people who were.  They could argue on several levels.  First, perhaps it
wouldn't work, which would be informative.  Second, if just a single hybrid
individual was born, this would be a very interesting animal and surely
could shed light on some interesting questions.  Presumably it could remain
among captive elephants and at least have no more of an impoverished life
than other captive elephants (that's of course another discussion).  Third,
if it turned out that mammoths really could be "reborn," and I suspect this
is quite questionable, with the long generation time of such a large animal
even if fertile hybrids were produced, there really is a lot of habitat for
them in the Canadian and American north, with huge protected areas already
set up in various northern biomes.

It actually makes my hair stand on end to think of coming around a turn in
Denali National Park and seeing a herd of woollly mammoths grazing on a
hillside!  And I guess if someone found a way to reconstitute a few species
of dinosaurs, I wouldn't object.  Obviously there would have to be every
effort not to go the way of King Kong (a more distasteful example to me
than Jurassic Park), but you probably would have to keep them in captivity.
I wonder what percentage of the people on this list have had a thought
something like "gee, it would be wonderful to be able to go back to the
Mesozoic and check on the dinosaurs."  And what percentage of *them* would
say "but I don't want anyone reconstituting one in the present."

I would decry this effort just as you do if it were no more than a
publicity stunt, and I agree entirely with your whole list of objections.
But at the same time I truly believe it would add to our knowledge of
nature, and, if carefully done, could avoid being a freak show.  I guess
I'm putting the best possible spin on it.

Perhaps there are only a small number of scientists who would *really*
benefit from being able to study such an animal, but there are surely some
in physiology, proboscidean biology, evolutionary biology, ethology,
biogeography, and probably cellular and subcellular disciplines that could
learn something of interest, and that in turn could be shared with the
entire world.  I guess I wouldn't want to be the grantor of
elephant-insemination permits who said "no" to a serious scientific
endeavor.

There is a wide and sliding scale of viewpoints on bioethics, and it's a
field I haven't done much reading in, except for a few essays and an issue
of Animal Behaviour that discussed the use of animals for research, but it
comes up in discussion all the time.  Each biologically or medically
oriented society should devote a journal number to it, so its members are
aware of the philosophical questions, pertinent regulations, and needs for
further discussion of this vital subject.

Dennis Paulson, Director                           phone 206-756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History                 fax 206-756-3352
University of Puget Sound                       e-mail dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416