Reviving the Thylacine
 

SYDNEY, Australia (CNN) -- Conjuring images of Jurassic Park, Australian scientists say they are on the way to reviving a previously extinct species -- the Tasmanian Tiger -- using cloning technology.

The last Tasmanian Tiger, or Thylacine, died in captivity around 65 years ago.

The dog-like creature was a carnivorous, pouched marsupial with distinctive stripes on its back and hindquarters, which lived in the wilderness of Australia's Tasmania state.

Geneticists working for the Australian Museum said Tuesday they had successfully replicated Thylacine DNA using a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

This breakthrough allows the scientists to produce millions of pure copies of undamaged DNA fragments which they believe can work in a living cell.

Director of the Australian Museum Professor Mike Archer told CNN Tuesday that the PCR process only worked if DNA being used was viable.

"This technique was an extremely critical step in producing sufficient amounts of Tasmanian Tiger DNA to proceed with the research and extremely good news for future steps in accomplishing this project," he said.

The next stage is to make large quantity copies of all the genes of the Tasmanian Tiger so these can be used to construct synthetic chromosomes.

Archer said there was now not a "massive technical barrier" to producing Tasmanian Tiger clones, "only a hell of a lot of hard work".

"The big challenge now is the creation of the genetic library."

Archer said some scientists believed the first cloned tiger pup could be born within a decade, but timing was difficult to predict because of the unknowns ahead in such a project.

International interest
No other long extinct species has ever been cloned, although unsuccessful attempts have been made to extract DNA from a frozen mammoth.

The museum is currently working on viable DNA from three Thylacines -- two females and a male -- and hopes to get access to more DNA to enable it to develop sufficient genetic variation.

He said Australia was "out in front of the rest of the world" with this work, but far greater resources were now needed to complete the project.

"We are looking for some significant players to help," he said, adding that the project was attracting considerable international interest.

Archer said if the cloning of the Tasmanian tiger was successful, it could spark attempts to revive other extinct species.

While stories abound that some Thylacines continue to live in the remote wilds of Tasmania, there has been no verified sightings nor reliable evidence to support this.

By Grant Holloway
CNN

http://oddworldforums.net/oddworldia.../thylacine.jpg
From looking at this image, you'd think the thylacine was some kind of dog, but it's actually more closely related to the kangaroo.

You know Sydney that is really cool because if scientists can clone an extinct animal like the Tasmanian Tigar then they can do the same for many other en dangered and extinct species around the world. They could bring back the creatures that once roamed this planet and no longer have to worry about them going extinct because they would make more.

I'm not sure Sydney will agree with that...but the article was probably posted with intentions of objectivity.

But that's just me speaking. I don't think this sort of thing is necessarily a good idea, partly because the ecosystem develops once a species has died out, and the re-introduction of a predator could be dangerous.

Second, once you grant any individual the ability to recreate extinct life forms, you open up a whole new gateway to future experimentation. Once we start trying to bring back animals dating before the Tasmanian Tiger, things could get nasty. Plus, this sort of thing is a complete waste of time and resources - we don't need to bring these animals back.

That's the logical reasoning I can think of. On a petty note, I personally believe that it's dangerous to start controlling the production (and destruction) of lives that influences other organisms.

It's funny that Australia should be making this attempt, particularly due to its shoddy record in species introduction through foxes, cats and rats. We're a text book case for forced Darwinism with animals and humans alike.

*laughing* Shall we kill paramiteabe, clone him then raise him to be slightly different? Yes? Good. It's agreed then.



And if the Thylacines are cloned and introduced into the environment, as LuxoJr said, a potentially dangerous precedent will be set which will allow scientists to reintroduce dragons and leprichauns. And maybe even cenataurs... Scary!

Isn't there sposed to be some Tas Tigers left out there in the Wild. Although they are extinct i have heard that there were sightings of some.

I seriously doubt that the ecosystem will have adapted in less than a century... I mean, all we'd be doing would be partially undoing the wrong we've already done...

EDIT:

Are you entirely sure you want to be associated with that wanker?

You've got a point...i'll do something to it when i can be bothered and when i member.

I agree with Danny. The ecosystem wouldn't have changed that much. Besides, we don't know if the scientists intend to release them into the wild, or study them in captivity. I guess eventually they would be released.

I also think that a herd of velociraptors would make excellent guard-dogs.

Bringing back the Tiger is just a start. Who knows where things could head after this? As for the ecological impact, you're right, it probably wouldn't have much of an impact; but like any level of scientific experimentation, it leads to greater consequences.

Cloning started off small, with sheep, and has already worked its way up to more intelligent animals such as cats. The possible Tiger re-introduction is not going to be an isolated incident.

Yeah i have heard about this, but what i don't understand is how are they going to do it? Because it can't exactly be born so how are they going to create it?

I don't know if my information is correct, because I got this out of one of those Dinosaur learning books for children, but weren't velociraptors about the size of a chicken? If that's the case, I think I'd stick with a German Shepherd.

Raptors were bigger then chickens, I am sure. Anyway I don't think a tas tiger actually could get cloned. Did anyone see them chickens that they cloned? They had no feathers, it was just like a bought chicken with the head and legs; it was revolting.

Raptors were a metre tall. If Jurassic Park had modelled things to scale, they probably wouldn't have been so menacing. At least no more than the procompsognathus thingies (those little green bastards that tore up the guy in Lost World).

They don't have to bring back large dangerous animals like Dinosaurs. They can revive populations of endangered animals now like the Manatee or other sea creatures that are endangered like whales or seals.

1. *singing* The leg bone's connected to the hip bone...

2. It can be born. They implant the embryo into a similar animal.

You're thinking of Procompsognathus...

Why didn't Jurassic Park use Deinonycuses instead of Velociraptors? Deinonychuses were about the same size as the raptors were in Jurassic Park, whereas real Velociraptors were (as Sydney said) only about a metre tall...

topic: most likely will not be released in wild for some time because there would only be one tiger (for a while) and thus, cannot reproduce so would only last *insert life span of tasmanian tiger minus age of origonal here* so they would need two sets of deoxyribonucleicacid at least before they would even think of releasing any in the wild.

side topic:the "velocoraptors" from Jurassic Park were actually modled after Deinonychuses (pretty much what danny said), sydney, if your interest in something a little more, er, dangerous there dinosaur in the same genus that could kill a bronosaurus with one or two swipes (made a 15 ft(approx 5m) gash)(unless my information is wrong then please disregard).

If you were to read the article, you'd see that they are already working on DNA from three individuals, so your argument is technically (if not actually) defunct...

Okay then, I guess Jurassic Park is a litle outdated to use as a handbook for selecting animal-guards. I suppose I can't go wrong in using a t-rex?

Is anyone else in awe of the concept of bringing the thylacine back? This animal has been dead for 65 years! It's no longer a matter of if, but when. It's very fascinating.

*hides in a corner and mumbles something about biodiversity*

*quickly finds new argument and jumps out of corner*

they will have to be second generation before they can be put into wild easily so it will still be a while, unless the specimines they took it from were paticularly young when they were killed.

*goes back into corner*

Didn't I mention awe? Oh, umm... Awe, yeah...

I know at least one of the specimens was a foetus.

That is a common misconception of cloning. People think that Clones are born the same age as their donors, but this is impossible. Clones have to grow up, just like anyone else... I mean, do you think your age is coded into your DNA? Your DNA would have to be changing constantly!

Yeh, it is. They have been talking about it for ages now, i saw a documentary about maybe the Tas Tigers still being alive, and towards the end of that Doc it said even if they wern't then Scientist peeps are considering cloning one from the DNA of a Foetus they had.

I know that they aren't the same age it's that the flaws when copying cells that make old age are present in the DNA so technicly they are younger than their cells.

I think you're reading too much into a small theory here... Yes mutations are going to be present in more cells as you get older, but that is still a very rare thing. Old Age isn't caused by mutations...

For those of you conserned about the ecosystem, I wouldn't worry, they wouldn't let a tasmanian tiger out into the wild any time soon. With the amount of money it takes to clone animals, that baby is going to stay captive. I assume they would want to keep it for study as well. That's why cloning (for the time bring) doesn't really help endagered species in the wild.

As for not being able to clone it because it can't be "born", that's actually not true. A tasmanian tiger is much more simple than, as an example, a dinosaur, because even though we don't have any compatible marsupials, we do know how marsupials develop. Synthesizing a womb is actually one of the easier parts of cloning, getting useable DNA is harder.

Oh, and Steve, the large velociraptor your thinking of is called megaraptor. It lived in South America and may have reached a length of 30+ feet. While it couldn't kill a brontosaur (they didn't live at the same time), it probably ate whatever else it wanted.

People have been saying that for years. noone really knows how true it is (they may have just been feral dogs).

Most people (including the media) have been missing the point of what Australian Museum Professor Mike Archer was saying - he wasn't saying "we have the technology to clone the thylacine" (which would then go on to imply that they could clone almost any extinct animal). Rather, he was saying that when the technology exists, it will be possible as they have found that DNA in the specimens has been preserved and is still "alive". He gave it a projection of 10 years.

Also, in regard to someone's question on what animal would be the surrogate mother, the prof said that they would possibly use other native tasmanian creatures, like the tassie devil.

I hope this cleared things up

Nathan

Thanks for clearing that up Danny. I've always been confused by the "age" of the organism when it's been cloned.

Speaking of surrogate motherhood, would it be theoretically possible to implant a human embryo into the womb of a chimpanzee, or vice versa? *fiendish giggle*

I dont think it would be possible to implant a human child into a chimp or vise versa because humans and chimps are simply not close enough. If a human and a chimp mated (which I'm sure some ass hole has done), they could not produce offspring. Its this closeness that I think an organism would need to be in the womb of another.
So much must go between the baby and the mother if you really take the time to think about it... Okay, enough of that.
In fact, in some studies, the babies of surrogate mothers have amounts of the surrogate mother's DNA and I've even heard of them looking like them. I suppose that we don't know much about this technology, much like cloning, which is EXTREMELY inefficient... though most people don't think.
And Sydney, if it were possible to clone some one in the Hollywood fashion, then it would probably be best described like it was in "The Sixth Day". Otherwise, cloning is more like it is in, say, "The Boys From Brazil" or even (without the growth-speeding technology) "Star Wars: Episode II".

Yes, I'm sure it would be. Over 97% of human genetic material is identical to chimpanzees' (incidentally, 30% of our genetic material is identical to that of lettuce!); in fact, chimps are more closely related to us than they are to any of the other anthropoids. Human birth control pills also work on gorillas.

But why the smeg would you want to?

97 percent? That's incredible!

As for the lettuce, is that the same 30% we'd also share with all organic life forms? Or do we have some bizarre 'lettuce gene' somewhere that's unique to humans?

Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than you or I.

Lol, i didn't see what was wrong with that episode? At least it touched on something most would pass up. And it wasn't really supporting Paedophiles was it? Although, i do think they could of used less words that gays got called to use in insulting the Paedophiles. (Nonce etc)

Doesn't 'nonce' mean paedophile?

97 percent? Is that all?

Its used for Gays aswell...in some places...i tink.

I have my reasons...

I was told that we have over 99% of the same DNA as chimpanzees. But other sources say 97, 98, etc.

The Chaser did a hilarious spoof article on finding the 'Catholic gene' amidst arguments over homosexuality 'acquisition' (or whatever). It was in a book, so I can't c/v the text here. Funny stuff, though.