Cloning Endangered Species for Captivity
In this time of crisis for the natural world, it is important to not only protect habitats, but to also insure that there are reserve populations of endangered species in captivity as insurance. But several endangered species are not only suffering in the wild, but they could not survive or thrives in captivity. Attempts to bring them into captivity has ended drastically and further endangered the species with their deaths.
What would I suggest to do as a solution for this?
This would sound very Sci-Fi, but I would suggest that we clone them (in captivity) so that their clones might adapt easier in captivity than wild-caught ones and can keep their gene pool existing if the wild gene pool dies out.
Since younger animals, especially those born in captivity, adapt better than old ones, it seems like a probable thing.
On the species of choice, these what I would consider:
-Indri (largest living species of lemur), using Verreaux's or Coquerel's sifakas as surrogate mothers.
-Pink Fairy Armadillo, using nine-based armadillos as surrogate mothers.
-Soala (species of rainforest dwelling bovine), using anoas or even domestic cattle as surrogate mother.
-Javan Rhino, using Indian Rhinos as surrogate mothers.
-Northern Sportive Lemur, using ring-tailed lemurs as surrogate mothers.
-Mountain gorilla, using lowland gorillas as surrogate mothers.
We can also clone individuals from the wild so we can use their genetics for our captive gene pool without taking out of the wild (especially for species who we have not have ARTs for yet).
Could cloning save endangered species?
By itself? Of course not. However, consider this:
By itself, can a hammer make a house? By itself, can a screwdriver built a car? By itself and with no other tools, could a tape measurer build an airplane?
If you know that answer is no, why is that the answer?
Because you need more tools to make those things.
The same thing applies to cloning; it can be a helpful tool in saving an endangered species, but it is only one tool in a whole toolbox.
Along with that, we need regular captive breeding, education, scientific research, preserving the habitat, laws that protect the species and their habitat, people willing to protect them, etc.
Would using this technology be "unnatural"?
Well, there are whole species of lizards and crayfish can clone themselves without the need of any males. Some species of snakes, like copperheads and cottonmouths, would occasionally clone themselves in the wild. And what about twins, triplets, and quadruplets since they technically are clones, will you call them unnatural?
This technology is a new tool that we can use to helping endangered species, in addition to our current existing ones.
We must use everything we got and need to help the species, so we can tell our children and they tell theirs' that we actually did or tried everything.
We all know about species that died out due to human activities, but what about those who are completely snuffed out due to human INactivities?
One such species that has died to both human actions and inactions is the thylacine or tasmanian tiger. It was persecuted for it was hunting sheep and decimating farms and livelihoods, though later research showed the feral dogs and mismanagement were more of a threat to the sheep than the thylacines were. But, no one did anything, even as it was clear that it was dying out. By the time is was given any sort of protection, it was already too late and the thylacine was gone.
Now, we have the means and technology to make sure that we don't make that same mistake again, so I say let's do it!
Cons
While I have pointed out the pros for this idea and that we should use, I am not gonna ignore the fact that there are also cons to this as well.
One the first things to point out that if this idea was being done, there will be risks that all cloning processes go through:
For one, the cost of cloning a single individual animal would be pretty high. For example, cloning a pet dog would cost around $50,000 USD (while years ago, it would've been 100K) and no doubt that cloning more exotic species would be more expensive than cloning a common house pet. While there no doubt that the cost of cloning would be lower in the years to come, the price of an action is still something to consider, especially since fundings for conservation-related project can be quite limited.
Another thing to consider is the death rate of the embryos and fetuses to bring up just one individual animal. For example, with Dolly the sheep, she was the only successful clone after 276 attempts. Basically, all the other embryos failed and died. This is so or similar to other clone attempts on other species too. However, since Dolly, the success rates have increased and the cloned embryos' chances of survival have improved. While things have improved, death is still a problem in this.
Another issue to deal with would be the health of the clone. While not every often, clones can tend to be not always as healthy as the donor animal. Even Dolly had developed some medical issues that shorten her life and might be related to her being a clone. However, health rates of clones have improved and the clones' offspring are shown to be just as healthy as their clone's predecessor had been. So, if the cloned animals have offspring, their offspring would be healthy and be able to carry on the gene pool.
Another issue with clones of endangered species would be their mitochondrial DNA. You seem, animals have both the nuclear DNA (in the nucleus of the cell and it's the DNA that we're all more familiar with) and the mitochondrial DNA (DNA of the mitochondria , which is the powerhouse of the cells, within our cells). The mitochondria has it's own DNA and this would be important for the cell to function properly (think of symbiosis). We would get the mitochondria from our mothers, in her oocytes or eggs, NOT from our father's sperm. Often when scientists commence on inter-species cloning, they would use the surrogate species' oocytes rather than the donor's. If we were to clone males, this would not be a problem since the males don't past on their mitochondria to their offspring (though it could happen, BUT it is extremely rare). But when cloning the females, we MUST use the oocytes of the donor species so that the clones would have the mitochondria of their respective species.
On the side note of mitochondrial DNA, it is also important so that we do not genetically polluted the species' gene pool. Many species today (e.g. bison and Cercocarpus traskiae) are in trouble due to genetic pollution. Since the main point of this idea is save a species and their gene pool, this would be immensely important.
While those issues I mentioned before are important from a laboratory sense, there are still other issues if you successfully clone these animals and that would be behavior.
For example, while the clones might express a lot of their species' behaviors, studies have shown that captive animals would display different behaviors than their wild cousins. And the unknownness of the behavior of some of these species would bring up issues in the future. And there is a chance that the behaviors that they would express would make them not be able to survive or thrive in captivity, just like their donors.
With that mentioned, it also brings up that these animals might have needs (nutrition, welfare, etc.) that would be completely unknown to us. Like when we got the Sumatran rhinos in zoos in the USA, we found out the hard way that they do not do well on a diet of hay, like other species of rhinos do. After some deaths later, it was discovered that they do better on a diet of fig and ficus branches. While did found out what we were doing wrong, it took some deaths to happen 'til we did.
While cloning and raising them in captivity might be an easier way to get some species to do alright in captivity, there are still unknowns about these animals that still be a challenge.
But even if they will be challenges, I would still say that if this idea could help these species survive, then those challenges are challenges worth taking!
UPDATE
Currently (2019) at the San Diego Zoo Wild Animal Park, they are working on helping the Northern White Rhino. How they plan to do this is by converting stem cells from the skin cells stored in their frozen zoo, convert them into gametes (sperm and eggs), fertilized in a petri dish (IVF), and insert them into a Southern White Rhino.
With this in mind, it would probably stand to reason that we could use stem cells to create gametes of Critically Endangered species of animals that usually don't do well in captivity (such as the javan rhino, indri, etc.).
Now, after this article, why would I change from cloning to this?
Well, for one thing, this process might actually be considered easier than cloning. Once you get the stem cells to becoming gametes, getting them to merge in the petri dish would probably be easy.
Another reason that with this technology, we would have no mitochondria issues with the resulting offspring, meaning that the offspring be purebred and have no genetic pollution whatsoever.
I could also imagine that this mention might have a higher success rate and lower death rate than that of cloning.
Also, this could be able to bring up individuals that are more genetically good, especially if resulted of two genetically compatible individuals that would never meet in the wild. And that you could be able to get the stem cells the same way that you could get cells for cloning.
(On another added note, you could do this by simply gathering sperm and eggs from either living individuals or freshly deceased individuals. But, that would include more invasive methods of collecting than simple skin samples and such.)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20862-stem-cells-may-save-rhinos-from-extinction/
Gerhard Scholtz; Anke Braband; Laura Tolley; André Reimann; Beate Mittmann; Chris Lukhaup; Frank Steuerwald; Günter Vogt (2003). "Parthenogenesis in an outsider crayfish". Nature. 421 (6925): 806.
Levin DA, Francisco-Ortega J, Jansen RK (1996-02-01). "Hybridization and the Extinction of Rare Plant Species". Conservation Biology. 10 (1): 10–16.
https://myfriendagain.com/dog-cloning-cost/
https://www.rd.com/culture/animals-never-see-at-zoo/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/apr/19/genetics.highereducation
What would I suggest to do as a solution for this?
This would sound very Sci-Fi, but I would suggest that we clone them (in captivity) so that their clones might adapt easier in captivity than wild-caught ones and can keep their gene pool existing if the wild gene pool dies out.
Since younger animals, especially those born in captivity, adapt better than old ones, it seems like a probable thing.
On the species of choice, these what I would consider:
-Indri (largest living species of lemur), using Verreaux's or Coquerel's sifakas as surrogate mothers.
-Pink Fairy Armadillo, using nine-based armadillos as surrogate mothers.
-Soala (species of rainforest dwelling bovine), using anoas or even domestic cattle as surrogate mother.
-Javan Rhino, using Indian Rhinos as surrogate mothers.
-Northern Sportive Lemur, using ring-tailed lemurs as surrogate mothers.
-Mountain gorilla, using lowland gorillas as surrogate mothers.
 |
| Indri (wikipedia) |
 |
| Saola (world wildlife.org) |
 |
| Pink-Fairy Armadillo (a-z-animals.com) |
 |
| Javan Rhino (rainforest-alliance.org) |
 |
| Northern Sportive Lemur (forcechange.com) |
 |
| Mountain Gorilla (WWF) |
We can also clone individuals from the wild so we can use their genetics for our captive gene pool without taking out of the wild (especially for species who we have not have ARTs for yet).
Could cloning save endangered species?
By itself? Of course not. However, consider this:
By itself, can a hammer make a house? By itself, can a screwdriver built a car? By itself and with no other tools, could a tape measurer build an airplane?
If you know that answer is no, why is that the answer?
Because you need more tools to make those things.
The same thing applies to cloning; it can be a helpful tool in saving an endangered species, but it is only one tool in a whole toolbox.
Along with that, we need regular captive breeding, education, scientific research, preserving the habitat, laws that protect the species and their habitat, people willing to protect them, etc.
Would using this technology be "unnatural"?
Well, there are whole species of lizards and crayfish can clone themselves without the need of any males. Some species of snakes, like copperheads and cottonmouths, would occasionally clone themselves in the wild. And what about twins, triplets, and quadruplets since they technically are clones, will you call them unnatural?
 |
| Marbled crayfish, 'tribble-ish' crayfish (wikipedia.org) |
This technology is a new tool that we can use to helping endangered species, in addition to our current existing ones.
We must use everything we got and need to help the species, so we can tell our children and they tell theirs' that we actually did or tried everything.
We all know about species that died out due to human activities, but what about those who are completely snuffed out due to human INactivities?
One such species that has died to both human actions and inactions is the thylacine or tasmanian tiger. It was persecuted for it was hunting sheep and decimating farms and livelihoods, though later research showed the feral dogs and mismanagement were more of a threat to the sheep than the thylacines were. But, no one did anything, even as it was clear that it was dying out. By the time is was given any sort of protection, it was already too late and the thylacine was gone.
Now, we have the means and technology to make sure that we don't make that same mistake again, so I say let's do it!
Cons
While I have pointed out the pros for this idea and that we should use, I am not gonna ignore the fact that there are also cons to this as well.
One the first things to point out that if this idea was being done, there will be risks that all cloning processes go through:
For one, the cost of cloning a single individual animal would be pretty high. For example, cloning a pet dog would cost around $50,000 USD (while years ago, it would've been 100K) and no doubt that cloning more exotic species would be more expensive than cloning a common house pet. While there no doubt that the cost of cloning would be lower in the years to come, the price of an action is still something to consider, especially since fundings for conservation-related project can be quite limited.
Another thing to consider is the death rate of the embryos and fetuses to bring up just one individual animal. For example, with Dolly the sheep, she was the only successful clone after 276 attempts. Basically, all the other embryos failed and died. This is so or similar to other clone attempts on other species too. However, since Dolly, the success rates have increased and the cloned embryos' chances of survival have improved. While things have improved, death is still a problem in this.
Another issue to deal with would be the health of the clone. While not every often, clones can tend to be not always as healthy as the donor animal. Even Dolly had developed some medical issues that shorten her life and might be related to her being a clone. However, health rates of clones have improved and the clones' offspring are shown to be just as healthy as their clone's predecessor had been. So, if the cloned animals have offspring, their offspring would be healthy and be able to carry on the gene pool.
Another issue with clones of endangered species would be their mitochondrial DNA. You seem, animals have both the nuclear DNA (in the nucleus of the cell and it's the DNA that we're all more familiar with) and the mitochondrial DNA (DNA of the mitochondria , which is the powerhouse of the cells, within our cells). The mitochondria has it's own DNA and this would be important for the cell to function properly (think of symbiosis). We would get the mitochondria from our mothers, in her oocytes or eggs, NOT from our father's sperm. Often when scientists commence on inter-species cloning, they would use the surrogate species' oocytes rather than the donor's. If we were to clone males, this would not be a problem since the males don't past on their mitochondria to their offspring (though it could happen, BUT it is extremely rare). But when cloning the females, we MUST use the oocytes of the donor species so that the clones would have the mitochondria of their respective species.
On the side note of mitochondrial DNA, it is also important so that we do not genetically polluted the species' gene pool. Many species today (e.g. bison and Cercocarpus traskiae) are in trouble due to genetic pollution. Since the main point of this idea is save a species and their gene pool, this would be immensely important.
 |
| Though they don't look it, a lot of bison have cattle genes |
While those issues I mentioned before are important from a laboratory sense, there are still other issues if you successfully clone these animals and that would be behavior.
For example, while the clones might express a lot of their species' behaviors, studies have shown that captive animals would display different behaviors than their wild cousins. And the unknownness of the behavior of some of these species would bring up issues in the future. And there is a chance that the behaviors that they would express would make them not be able to survive or thrive in captivity, just like their donors.
With that mentioned, it also brings up that these animals might have needs (nutrition, welfare, etc.) that would be completely unknown to us. Like when we got the Sumatran rhinos in zoos in the USA, we found out the hard way that they do not do well on a diet of hay, like other species of rhinos do. After some deaths later, it was discovered that they do better on a diet of fig and ficus branches. While did found out what we were doing wrong, it took some deaths to happen 'til we did.
While cloning and raising them in captivity might be an easier way to get some species to do alright in captivity, there are still unknowns about these animals that still be a challenge.
But even if they will be challenges, I would still say that if this idea could help these species survive, then those challenges are challenges worth taking!
UPDATE
Currently (2019) at the San Diego Zoo Wild Animal Park, they are working on helping the Northern White Rhino. How they plan to do this is by converting stem cells from the skin cells stored in their frozen zoo, convert them into gametes (sperm and eggs), fertilized in a petri dish (IVF), and insert them into a Southern White Rhino.
With this in mind, it would probably stand to reason that we could use stem cells to create gametes of Critically Endangered species of animals that usually don't do well in captivity (such as the javan rhino, indri, etc.).
Now, after this article, why would I change from cloning to this?
Well, for one thing, this process might actually be considered easier than cloning. Once you get the stem cells to becoming gametes, getting them to merge in the petri dish would probably be easy.
Another reason that with this technology, we would have no mitochondria issues with the resulting offspring, meaning that the offspring be purebred and have no genetic pollution whatsoever.
I could also imagine that this mention might have a higher success rate and lower death rate than that of cloning.
Also, this could be able to bring up individuals that are more genetically good, especially if resulted of two genetically compatible individuals that would never meet in the wild. And that you could be able to get the stem cells the same way that you could get cells for cloning.
(On another added note, you could do this by simply gathering sperm and eggs from either living individuals or freshly deceased individuals. But, that would include more invasive methods of collecting than simple skin samples and such.)
= REFERENCE =
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20862-stem-cells-may-save-rhinos-from-extinction/
=REFERENCES=
Gerhard Scholtz; Anke Braband; Laura Tolley; André Reimann; Beate Mittmann; Chris Lukhaup; Frank Steuerwald; Günter Vogt (2003). "Parthenogenesis in an outsider crayfish". Nature. 421 (6925): 806.
Levin DA, Francisco-Ortega J, Jansen RK (1996-02-01). "Hybridization and the Extinction of Rare Plant Species". Conservation Biology. 10 (1): 10–16.
https://myfriendagain.com/dog-cloning-cost/
https://www.rd.com/culture/animals-never-see-at-zoo/
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/apr/19/genetics.highereducation
Philip W. Hedrick, Conservation Genetics and North American Bison (Bison bison), Journal of Heredity, Volume 100, Issue 4, July-August 2009, Pages 411–420
Comments
Post a Comment