The interaction between synthetic biology and conservation was on the news today in Nature. Recent news that the extinct Rheobatrachus silus has been cloned (well, up to a point, the embryos did not survive more than a few days) brings up many questions. The question that I personally find most important is: what are we trying to achieve here?
Let's first introduce our main actor, the Rheobatrachus silus. This frog was (or is) an Australian frog with one peculiar habit: following fertilisation the female would swallow the eggs, which would develop safely in her stomach. Once the tadpoles had metamorphosed into small froglets they would be 'regurgitated' out by the mother. Nobody knows why these frogs went extinct (the fact that they were a small population to start with did not help either), though infectious diseases might have played a role. People of the persuasion that we should put a price tag on everything should consider what a wonderful model for gastric inflammation we have lost.
Let's first introduce our main actor, the Rheobatrachus silus. This frog was (or is) an Australian frog with one peculiar habit: following fertilisation the female would swallow the eggs, which would develop safely in her stomach. Once the tadpoles had metamorphosed into small froglets they would be 'regurgitated' out by the mother. Nobody knows why these frogs went extinct (the fact that they were a small population to start with did not help either), though infectious diseases might have played a role. People of the persuasion that we should put a price tag on everything should consider what a wonderful model for gastric inflammation we have lost.
More to the point of my post. I am personally not that concerned that ham-fisted scientists will unleash a plague of mutants on the planet. We can barely get the embryos to survive in the first place. What I am concerned about is that I do not really see a long term strategy behind this work. Assuming we were successful in cloning Rheobatrachus to adulthood, what next? Cloning extinct species is fine and dandy, but what are we going to do with the resulting animals, assuming we get there? If we cannot produce a viable population, the interest from a conservation standpoint is lost to me. For many extinct species we know nothing or next to nothing about their demographic parameters and the amount of genetic variability present in the species as a whole and in the different subpopulations (if present). What are we planning to do, fetch every possible source of DNA from museum collections hoping to get enough variation (and what if all specimens are the same sex?)? And then? Producing the odd live individual might look like a small miracle, but what good it is to get one Rheobatrachus silus? We would need to get many, with sufficient genetic variation, and make sure that they can keep reproducing by themselves. This seems to be a tough call.
Human ingenuity and technological advances can sort many problems. Extinction is not one of them. For complex animals such as amphibians the chances of undoing our actions on the natural world are slim. And what is potentially worrying is that the false security that 'we can clone them back to life' will stop people from preventing extinction in the real world in the first place. So, once more, what are we trying to achieve? And are we sure we are using our resources to best effect?
Human ingenuity and technological advances can sort many problems. Extinction is not one of them. For complex animals such as amphibians the chances of undoing our actions on the natural world are slim. And what is potentially worrying is that the false security that 'we can clone them back to life' will stop people from preventing extinction in the real world in the first place. So, once more, what are we trying to achieve? And are we sure we are using our resources to best effect?
RSS Feed