The Tasmanian Tiger: A Second Chance at Life?
In the early 20th century, the Tasmanian tiger (Thylacinus cynocephalus) was considered extinct. The last known specimen died in the Hobart Zoo in 1936, and any hopes of reviving the species looked to be lost. But according to one group of scientists, that might not be true after all. A team of University of New South Wales researchers has announced plans to sequence the entire genome of the tiger, which they believe will allow them to not only create embryos, but clone new tigers themselves.
What is the difference between cloning and de-extinction?
Cloning and de-extinction are two ways of attempting to bring an extinct animal back to life. Cloning is a process in which DNA from the cells of an endangered species are inserted into a egg cell from a closely related, living organism. The fertilized egg cell is then placed into the uterus of a closely related, living female animal so that it can gestate, or carry, the clone baby to term. De-extinction is a more advanced form of this cloning technique that requires even more resources and time than traditional cloning, but has been successful with projects like the Pyrenean ibex (the Spanish version of our dear friend the American bison). In order to make sure there will be no change in what we consider an extinct species, de-extinction involves sequencing the entire genome of an animal (in this case, the Tasmanian tiger) and then using artificial selection on the genes to reshape it into its previous self.
This new type of genetic engineering will involve editing each gene one by one until they match up perfectly with those in another organism - in this case, a house cat - which have similar genetic sequences that allow for similar physical characteristics. The resurrected Tasmanian tiger would be largely genetically engineered; not natural at all. Researchers also plan to use frozen tissue samples from thylacines and as much footage as possible to reanimate them using motion capture technology. Scientists are now turning their focus towards the eastern quoll, an Australian marsupial. As Australia’s top predator, they need help making sure that their environment stays pristine. Hopefully the eastern quoll will not become yet another victim of extinction!
Why de-extinct a Tasmanian tiger?
With the advent of advanced technology and medicine, scientists are now debating whether it is morally acceptable to bring species back from extinction. There is a growing concern that if we resurrect animals such as the Wooly Mammoth, this could lead to disastrous consequences for humans as well as animal species. For example, imagine what would happen if a de-extinct Wooly Mammoth were to escape from its habitat and come into contact with an extant elephant herd or other vulnerable species such as pandas or anteaters? There are also claims that humans have no moral obligation to resurrect extinct animals because it would be akin to playing God. Still, others argue that these extinct animals represent an important part of human history and should not be forgotten simply because they're gone. The idea of resurrection, especially when looked at through the lens of art, can be seen as more than just something practical; it's something meaningful. The late Irish poet Seamus Heaney described how poems can break out again like wooly mammoths. Similarly, English author William Faulkner wrote in Requiem for a Nun that the past isn't dead - it isn't even past. We cannot forget about our own history by forgetting about animals like the Tasmanian tiger. In short, the arguments on both sides are compelling enough to make one wonder who should decide whether de-extinction will occur. Is it up to scientists and conservationists? Governments around the world? Or do citizens have a say in this too?
How will scientists de-extinct this animal?
It's amazing to think that something which became extinct more than 100 years ago could be resurrected. However, it is possible with the help of genome editing. For example, it's been proposed that scientists could use fragments of DNA from specimens preserved in museums and amplify the genetic code for certain traits. While this process has proved successful with livestock before, now scientists are looking to apply this process to species outside of domesticated animals, like the tiger. This project is expected to take a lot of work- so far they've only gone through 12 generations with mixed success- but if they can pull off resurrection it would be incredible. The National Geographic Society estimates that there were once as many as 20,000 tigers in Tasmania until 1876 when hunters killed them all. If researchers can resurrect this animal again then there will no longer be an excuse for hunting them ever again. Though some people may disagree, I think that extinction should not happen to any animal unless they have caused significant harm. Besides the moral reasons for saving the tiger, I believe that there are scientific reasons too. Since tigers are still roaming free on other continents, we can learn about these animals by studying those in Australia and make inferences about those on other continents based on their similarities. That way we could study what makes this big cat so uniquely awesome without putting our own wildlife at risk! I'm excited to see where this research goes and how much closer we get to de-extinction!
Will de-extinct animals still be endangered?
Although de-extinction of the Tasmanian tiger may be a promising prospect for saving endangered animals, there are many problems that still need to be worked out. As one animal becomes extinct, its niche is taken up by another animal. It's highly unlikely the same species will replace the tiger. Even if it could, it would take tens of thousands of years to do so, which would disrupt and destroy other species' niches in the meantime. Plus, what if some other animal evolves to take up that space as well? All in all, de-extinction presents many problems with unclear outcomes. Scientists seem optimistic about this new method, but we must proceed cautiously. I think we should be spending our time on better solutions to preservation like conservation and habitat restoration instead of worrying about what ifs. There are also potential ethical issues to consider. What if they were to create an exact replica of the creature, only different from their original form due to artificial breeding techniques? If they were no longer identical, should we care more about them than others of their kind who perished before extinction? What would happen when they came into contact with those who once belonged in their ecosystem? Should people be able to keep them as pets even though it was illegal before extinction due to international bans or strict regulations? The bottom line is that I don't want the government wasting time and money trying resurrecting species from extinction when we have so many pressing environmental issues today that require our attention.
Can we bring back other extinct species too?
What about pandas, who we haven't seen for decades, or the dodo, which had dwindled to a population of just twenty-four by 1690 before disappearing from the world? We cannot put ourselves in the position of these species and judge them as they go extinct. Who are we to say that their extinction was undeserved and wasn't part of a natural process on Earth? If this is true, then perhaps all the resources we expend trying to bring back these species could be better served by helping endangered ones. The answer isn't black and white. Yes, bringing back an animal like the Tasmanian tiger will preserve its genes, but what good is that if it can never again live in its native habitat? For example, scientists would have to create an entire zoo enclosure just for one animal with specialized equipment not only to recreate the climate of Australia's Tasmania (not even possible without extreme modifications), but also make sure it has enough food sources—prey animals it would need to hunt—to survive. It's likely that reintroducing such an animal into a habitat it has been absent from for so long would lead to complications and endangerment not only of itself but other native animals too. What do you think? Is preserving a single species worth the cost when there are so many others in danger?
How can we preserve wildlife before it goes extinct too?
Many of the world's animals and plants are being pushed to extinction. In other words, scientists are getting closer to the point where they will lose knowledge about certain species forever. So, how can we prevent that from happening? Fortunately, there are many ways for us to help keep them alive and thriving in their natural habitats. For example, here are some examples of conservation efforts that can help these endangered animals on their way back from the brink:
- Provide corridors between isolated populations. This enables migrating animals to move between habitat patches as they would naturally in a more unbroken landscape. The use of corridors has been shown to significantly increase population sizes and reduce risk of extinction for mammals such as jaguars, lions, bears, monkeys and leopards.
- Protect key areas with high biodiversity value. These include large swaths of old-growth forest or wetlands with threatened species living within them. Examples include the Great Bear Rainforest in Canada or Ecuador’s Yasuni National Park. Protection could come from enforcing existing regulations or passing new ones like those recently announced by Colombia to protect its forests.
- Conserve wildlife through law enforcement efforts by local governments, military personnel or park rangers who have an intimate understanding of the wildlife living in their country’s parks.
Is This Technology Ethical?
It seems like scientists are working day and night to find a way to bring extinct animals back to life. Maybe they should just try harder not to kill them in the first place. That being said, this news has left me with mixed feelings because I’m still hesitant about what could happen if we start living in a world where we're resurrecting extinct animals for fun. The question that needs to be asked is Is this technology ethical? Is there any argument against it really if science is capable of doing it anyway? It might sound all well and good, but who knows what might happen if we do this. If humans take control over the planet again, imagine how much havoc can be wreaked by a population of those big cats? Sure they'll make great tourist attractions but what will people do when one attacks their village? There's no telling how quickly these new additions to the animal kingdom would spread or how many habitats would need to be destroyed so they can live comfortably
I'm sure some people might see all these problems as worth it- after all, once you're dead you won't care anymore right? But I don't think that there's any point in trying to bring back something only to have it die out again. What happens if another species goes extinct? Will humans spend time and money on bringing them back too? Who knows what could happen then. We may be better off spending our time on saving other endangered species before they disappear instead of chasing ghosts from the past
We may never know what happens to these animals once they are released into the wild.
This may sound bizarre, but if we don't take a chance on these animals then the experiment will be meaningless. What are the odds that the animal would survive without an understanding of how to navigate its new home? Hopefully, scientists don't release one animal and not the other. By releasing multiple animals into their natural habitat, it's more likely for them to establish a life in their new surroundings and less likely for predators to spot them since they're not all in one place. In order to have a successful reintroduction, it's important to teach the species how to live in their natural environment. The scientists need to make sure that there is enough food available for the species and make sure they know where to find shelter during harsh winters. They also need to reintroduce deer so the tigers can prey on them once again. Without deer, there is no point in making this reintroduction happen because it would only create competition with humans over resources like water or food which could lead back towards extinction. However, as long as people keep planting trees and plants that grow fruit year-round then there should be plenty of food for both species of animals. It has been estimated that it will cost about $3 million to reintroduce 10 individuals of the tiger species into the wild. With government funding from organizations such as National Geographic Society, WWF, and Nature Conservancy along with private donations from companies such as Timberland Foundation and Coca-Cola Foundation, I believe this project can become a reality.
Resources & Information
Tasmanian tigers went extinct in the 1930s because of a perfect storm of factors, says Ben Hyne, Curator of Mammals at Western Australia's Albany Museum. A combination of hunting, habitat loss and competition with dingoes drove them to extinction. There were never any official estimates done on how many tigers may have existed, but according to the Hyne, In some areas populations ranged from as low as five to 50 animals. Today no one knows for sure how many descendants exist in zoos and wildlife parks around the world, but somewhere between 20-30 live in zoos worldwide. For example, Hobart Zoo has four breeding pairs including two males from Tasmania that arrived via Melbourne Zoo this year. It is not known if they will breed or not. Males have been killed off by hunters and females by dingoes over time. There is little genetic diversity left among the zoo population, he said, adding that there are only a few pure blooded female tasmanian tigers left in captivity today.
Posts
