They’re dead, Jim.
It’s Not a Mammoth, They Just Dressed It This Way
You’ve probably heard this story wandering about the internet, and you may have regarded it as folklore. Doubtless some versions of the story fudge the details a bit, but their underlying basis is true: various parties really are currently attempting to restore the Woolly Mammoth as a species, using a variety of approaches. Prospects of this kind of de-extinction through genetic engineering in particular have led to hotly debated ethical discussions in scientific circles; claims of progress add a sense of urgency and stakes to these debates. A related concept known as “rewilding” in relation to other extinct species is also beginning to influence environmental policy around the world, even at national levels. Much of what effects these actions may have and how we view them depends on what it really means to bring back the Woolly Mammoth or other extinct species, and exactly how we regard that as possible. Much of the discussion may have a scientific basis, leading some to consider it wholly scientific, but the implications reach much farther into philosophical and political realms.
As winter reminds us of the Ice Age long past, it also gives us a timely opportunity to consider just what the purported return of the mammoth might mean. One little blog post won’t cover this rapidly growing topic, but hopefully this will act as a primer for deeper inquiry. We will likely cover aspects of this issue in future posts with a little more detail. In doing so, we seek to inform readers and Park visitors about the facts at hand, and do not take a position as an organization on these matters. As you begin to probe the implications of de-extinction, rewilding, and other environmental issues, we urge you to found beliefs and policy decisions on sound principles and a thorough knowledge of the pertinent facts. Such a big topic has caused us to split this initial foray into three parts. The first deals most directly with the basics. The second explores some of the whys and wherefores driving mammoth cloning and other de-extinction projects. The third focuses on questions of precedent, both artificial and natural (yes, you read that right: we’ve done this sort of thing before, and so has Mother Nature). With all that said, let’s dive on into the basics!
- Let’s start with a brief history. 21st century efforts at mammoth de-extinction seem to have involved three main interconnected groups. The first group has based its operations in Japan, but at the time of this writing information on their efforts has proven hard to come by. A second group represented a combined effort between Korean and Russian scientists. A scientist named Hwang Woo-Suk headed up these cloning efforts. Unfortunately, his career was blighted when his claims of producing the world’s first human stem cell line were revealed as falsifications. Nevertheless, he seems to have produced success in cloning dogs and coyotes. Efforts at mammoth cloning by this team seem to have been derailed by patent disputes, at least for now.
- Currently, the main effort at mammoth de-extinction seems to be an American lab appropriately named “Colossal Laboratories.” Their website describes their primary goal as, “. . . the resurrection of the Woolly Mammoth – or more specifically a cold-resistant elephant with all of the core biological traits of the Woolly Mammoth. It will walk like a Woolly Mammoth, look like one, sound like one, but most importantly it will be able to inhabit the same ecosystem previously abandoned by the Mammoth’s extinction” (italics added). Pay close attention to the italicized parts of this description: if the lab produces a cold-resistant elephant with all the core traits of Mammuthus (but implicitly lacking all of them), can it justify describing its results as the resurrection of extinct species? On that note, just which species do scientists intend to revive? Mammuthus primigenius? Mammuthus columbi? Mammuthus trogontherii? Mammuthus meridionalis? Mammuthus rumanus? Considering that the difference between species could result in something as different as coyotes and wolves or lions and jaguars, especially in terms of behavior, answering such a question could make a big difference in procedures and results. The site claims that their genetically engineered elephant will sound like a mammoth, but how do we know what that sounds like? Did they trumpet? Did they use infrasound like modern elephants? Did they have specific calls, and if so, how did they differ from modern elephant genera? Could a Mammuthus primigenius communicate with a Mammuthus meridionalis? Or is there some sort of universal language shared by all elephant genera?
- The fact that this description begs so many questions–only a few are listed here–identifies a key problem with any form of de-extinction: how do you know if you get it right? Science lacks an exhaustive knowledge of the behaviors, biological makeup, and ecological roles of even recently extinct species; data known for prehistoric species provide at best a completely inadequate basis for comparison. Insofar as this description admits to making a re-creation, it illustrates the extreme limitations on just what results from de-extinction efforts. Depending on what species concept we use in judging the success of any such endeavor, results must range from “we have to call it an entirely new creation” to “it’s close enough for practical purposes.”
- Given all that, why then do they call it a “resurrection?”
- Mammoth cloning has one thing going for it that most other cloning efforts of prehistoric species don’t: we have a fairly decent idea of what its genome was like. Scientists can tell, for example, that populations of M. primigenius and M. columbi sometimes interbred. We even have mammoth DNA going back over a million years, so genetic diversity in a new clone species is relatively less of an issue. Even so, having enough DNA for certain studies doesn’t necessarily translate to having enough for a clone. Getting a full, clone-able set of chromosomes means getting all the parts in the right order, whereas comparative studies can afford to look at small sections. On top of that, since the fragmentary nature of ancient DNA requires stitching together samples from different individuals into a single composite, we run into the same old problem of knowing whether we got it right. Some may consider that point merely academic, but it’s not purely academic regarding DNA–degrees of uncertainty here can have practical repercussions. On top of all that, creating a breeding population of clones requires reviving an adequate amount of genetic diversity to prevent the problems of inbreeding; in the almost certain event that diversity has to be created artificially, we can say that the results of a cloning program has not revived the mammoth, but rather recreated something like it. These factors explain why Colossal hedges the description of its project as creating a “cold-adapted elephant” using fossil mammoth DNA, but this still begs the question of why they keep referring to this new, artificial species as a mammoth “resurrection.”
- Now consider the mountain of variables in cloning a long-extinct species that could go wrong. Even if you get the genotype right, those genes have to drive the growth and birth of a living thing–an enormously complex process that we poorly understand. Producing clones means creating hundreds of zygotes per single live birth because most of them will not survive the whole development process. Further, this development process has to take place somewhere, and for mammal clones, this means a complex relationship between the developing embryo and its surrogate mother. If some sort of machine plays the role of that “mother,” it will need to mimic a complex set of cues and tasks which, thanks to our relative ignorance about the finer points of mammoth life, might not be exactly correct, leading to results that could be difficult to predict or control. If a living elephant plays surrogate, those cues will almost certainly be off and could lead to complications in the pregnancy. Given how elephants are generally threatened, this raises ethical questions on risking an elephant female, taking her out of producing new elephants of her own species for two years (elephant gestation takes much longer than humans), or even simply harvesting her egg cells for the cloning process. If a mammoth cloning project intends to recreate the species, it will need to repeat the daunting task of producing a clone dozens of times to create a breeding population, and if you thought the human dating scene was difficult, consider how elephants segregate their herds by sex, how males compete for mates—sometimes fatally, the social implications of pregnancy in female herds, and how all of that will need to be managed by humans to reduce the associated risks in a vulnerable and highly expensive population. Whew! Mammoth ranching ain’t no small feat!
- Speaking of psychology: as relatively intelligent animals, mammoths or artificially cold-adapted elephants will need to learn what it means to coordinate with other animals as a herd, how to communicate, and other aspects of proper mammoth behavior. Who will educate these newly (re)born calves? Will elephants do it? Will elephants recognize kinship in an animal that will look different from them and accept it as part of their society? They do so to a degree with humans, but will it work with mammoths/mammothesques, or will they reject it? If elephants do end up teaching the foundation of functional mammoth behavior, what they teach may not approximate prehistoric mammoth behavior, lending another factor against “resurrecting” prehistoric species in its entirety even if the recreation approximates it well enough. If humans do the educating, how do we ensure the behaviors we teach are genuinely mammoth? How do we ensure the calves will respond as expected to learning mammoth behavior from little bald apes? Will proper mammoth pedagogy require puppetry or animatronics?–if so, chalk up another major technology to develop and fund. Paleontology can render almost no information about mammoth behavior, so whatever mammoth curriculum we attempt could come largely from our own notions, beliefs, and even desires for convenience instead of objective facts.
- Suffice it to say that any lab attempting any degree of mammoth “resurrection” has to solve far more problems than mere cloning, as if cloning weren’t difficult enough to begin with.
To use an Ice Age idiom, that’s just the tip of the iceberg regarding the obstacles to any mammoth cloning project. Considering all the expense and effort needed to complete such a project, why do it? The next installment of this blog post will examine motives of various sorts driving the project. In the meantime, if you are enjoying this coverage of a topic related to the Ice Age, why not come check out the Park in all its wintery glory while the Frozen in Time event runs? Tuesday through Saturday, starting at 2:30, we will have activities and tours available to help you explore the Pleistocene Ice Age and other cold weather extremes of Earth’s history—how they shaped our geography and how organisms adapted.
PART II COMING SOON