# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
Lack of knowledge

Arguments/facts:
- We will not probably have all the needs that de-extinct animals aquire
- We don't know the reaction of their new home, it could be agressive
- Returning to live extinct viruses

Dialog:
We think that we could sustain de-extict animals, but we are not even 25% prepared of what could come, because of lack of de-extinct behaviour knowladge

Summary:
Man-animal conflict will only become worse as more species are brought back from extinction. We might also bring back the viruses and pathogens that had become extinct with them. This will put tremendous pressure on extant species as well as the ecosystem as a whole. It's difficult to guess how these species will be able to adapt to the environment. There is no point in bringing species back from extinction if we cannot guarantee their safety.

Millions of animals are already falling prey to animal testing every year. The huge amount of money that we are spending on de-extinction could be used to save species which are on the verge of extinction.

APA:
M. (2015, 20 febrero). Pros and Cons of De-extinction. Biology Wise. Recuperado 1 de febrero de 2022, de https://biologywise.com/pros-cons-of-de-extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some people seem elated by the fact that we could be resurrecting extinct species. Others have some serious doubts about the idea. While it will take some time for the de-extinction concept to materialize, we can definitely evaluate its pros and cons to see what is in store for all the species that…

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
6 Cons of de-extinction

Arguments/facts:
- We would exploit somethings for achieving de-extinction.
- There is the threat of new disease with de-extinction.
- It may not change biomes or environments for the better
- This work could change scientific priorities in other fields
- De-extinction could cause even more species to go extinct
- It would force the new animals to live in captivity, for them to be save

Dialog:
We all think that they would fascinating and all, and I don't disagree. But maybe other animal would no accept their greatings and find them like a threat. Also if extinct animal died or from viruses, are we not going to de-extinct them also.

Summary:
De-extinction is the process of bringing back species that have gone extinct, or at least some of them, to our planet. Critics argue that it could cause even more harm to animals and the planet if we are exploiting them for purposes that are solely ours. We have no way of knowing if there would be human contagions associated with some of the creatures, especially if they come from the ancient world.

If we can restore an extinct species to its usual environment, then there is the potential to maintain homeostasis there. When there are several hundred years that have passed before the de-extinction process occurs, then the results could be very different. The returning species would be potentially alien to the environment because of the natural evolutionary process. Some might even act as an invasive species.

APA:
Editor in Chief. (2019, September 20). 13 Biggest Pros and Cons of De-Extinction. ConnectUS. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://connectusfund.org/13-biggest-pros-and-cons-of-de-extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In February 2017, scientists announced plans to create a live wooly mammoth in the next 24 months through a process known as de-extinction. When a plant or animal goes extinct, then every member of that species has died. Some of these animals are quite famous, like the Tasmanian tiger and the Mauritius dodo bird.

De-extinction makes it possible to bring an extinct species back to life through the DNAL cloning process. The team that wants to bring back the wooly mammoth, which includes George Church of Harvard University, will use DNA taken from the bodies of the animals trapped in permafrost or ice for up to 10,000 years. Then they plan to mix that genetic information with that of the ancient animal's closest relative, the Asian elephant.

DNA has a half-life of 521 years, which means it is only 50% viable after that amount of time. Since the last known living wooly mammoth died at least 4,000 years ago, the only way to resurrect the animal is to use a current one. The dodo and the Tasmanian tiger might have different results.

List of the Pros of De-Extinction

1. It would give us access to a bevy of new scientific information.
Many of the animals that have gone extinct on our planet passed away before modern science developed. That means we are left with illustrations and observations from those who were alive at the time. Using the de-extinction process to bring them back would allow us to gain more insights into how our world works. This work could help us to discover how the processes of evolution work, what natural resources were once available, and additional information that is not currently available to us.

2. There could be environmental benefits to consider with de-extinction.
There are several damaged and threatened ecosystems throughout the world that struggle because of plant or animal extinction. If we follow this process, then the advantage to consider includes restoration. By creating the balance in the biome once again that nature needs, we could see several environmental benefits begin to develop. It could help to reduce or eliminate some of the issues that we are encountering in the world today when there are too many predators or too much prey.

3. It provides a unique opportunity to experience the past.
For Generation X'ers, Baby Boomers and even some Millennials, the only experience they have with the past are pictures that are in textbooks. Everyone knows what a wooly mammoth is and when they lived, but that is a different experience than contemplating the idea of creating a new one. There is a definite advantage to consider when getting to hang out with the species that have been gone for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. To see them alive and kicking again would be a tremendous accomplishment for humanity.

4. We can provide a measure of justice for the planet.
There are several species that have encountered extinction because of human activities, including poaching. If we are the ones that have pushed specific animals and plants past the brink of destruction, then proponents suggest that there is an equal responsibility to fix the problem. We might owe it to those that have passed on to bring them back as a way to provide a sense of justice for our behaviors.

5. It gives us the foundation for more technological advances.
The 100-year Starship Program is a process that does more than look at the idea of building a vessel that can travel throughout our solar system. It encourages the development of new technologies and processes that would make such a journey possible. We could experience the same advantage when working toward the restoration of species through de-extinction. The genetic engineering process could develop tremendously when our emphasis is on the restoration of a specific species, much like Church's team with the wooly mammoth.

6. The information generated from de-extinction would help us preserve more species.
The techniques that we use to bring back extinct animals can apply to our threatened and endangered species as well. It would be a way to help us bring back genetics to a plant or animal gene line so that the risk of a bottleneck is severely reduced. Although there are certainly some risks to consider with this practice, we could apply the technology to various improvements in animal health too. Imagine birds that can't catch the flu or animals that could provide anti-cancer genes.

List of the Cons of De-Extinction

1. This process continues the issue of exploitation.
One of the primary reasons why animals have gone extinct in modern times is because humans have exploited them. There are several plants that have gone through the same process. If we begin the work of de-extinction, then are we not still exploiting life for purposes that are solely ours? Critics suggest that the idea of bringing back species could cause even more harm to them and our planet, even if they are some biome balancing benefits that could begin to appear over time.

2. There is the threat of new disease with de-extinction.
When an entire species goes extinct, then the diseases that impacted their health disappear from the planet. Going through the process of de-extinction could cause some of the pathogens, bacteria, or viruses to come back with them. We have no way of knowing if there would be human contagions associated with some of the creatures, especially if they come from the ancient world. Although it is a tragedy that many species have gone extinct over time, it may be safer for human health to avoid this area of science altogether.

3. It may not change biomes or environments for the better.
If we can immediately restore an extinct species to its usual environment, then there is the potential to maintain homeostasis there. When there are several hundred years that have passed before the de-extinction process occurs, then the results could be very different. The returning species would be potentially alien to the environment because of the natural evolutionary process. Some might even act as an invasive species. Habitats change over time. Food sources may not even be available to some returning plants or animals. That means their roles in the new ecosystems would change too.

4. This work could change scientific priorities in other fields.
Our current work in most fields involves looking at how the current environment can help us all to live healthy lives. If we progress toward work that involves de-extinction, then our priorities in conservation or medical research might shift. Critics suggest that there would be no reason to start funding endangered species programs because we could restore them if they become extinct for some reason. There would likely be a whole set of complicated legal issues with this practice as well, with the costs of litigation potentially higher than the work needed to bring back plants or animals that have passed away already.

5. There could be unforeseen consequences to these actions.
The idea of de-extinction to some is simple science, but to others, this practice is one that is comparable to playing God. Is it wrong to bring something back that is no longer present on our planet? The unforeseen consequences that could happen when animals like the wooly mammoth come back could put our planet on the brink of turmoil. It may even impact how each of us approaches life. We are already seeing industries pop up that offer to clone your dog or cat for you. Could humans be next?

6. De-extinction could cause even more species to go extinct.
In a review of the key points of de-extinction for New Zealand, writer Jenna Small notes for Science Glory that there are new risks that would occur for our current species with this process. "To resurrect New Zealand's 11 extinct species, three times as many endangered species would go extinct," she writes. "...[T]he cost to bring back five extinct species from New South Wales could help to preserve up to 42 living species."

The cost of de-extinction is a significant disadvantage that is not always discussed. Estimated conservation costs for the warblers on Chatham Island is somewhere near $400,000. That expense is significantly less than what it would take to go through the de-extinction process.

7. It would force the new animals to live in captivity.
When we look at the de-extinction process, the reality of this work is that each animal born from it will already be in captivity. Even Church's wooly mammoth team admits that the goal of the program, if successful, would be to keep the animals with their Asian elephant parents in zoos until they were old enough to establish herds in the colder climate areas of the planet.

We also know that it is an exceptionally slow process. The 24-month deadline to create a wooly mammoth has come and gone without full success. The next steps that Church's team must take are to reprogram the fibroblasts into induced pluripotent cells and development tissue types that help them to study the impact of mammoth mutations on cell traits.

The idea of bringing back extinct species is exciting. It is a scientific accomplishment that could change the world in many positive ways. There is also a lot of work that we must still do before we can produce the first generation of any species that has already passed away.

We have so far been quite unsuccessful with our efforts in this scientific field, but progress is happening. A 2009 effort to bring back a Pyrenean Ibex resulted in a live birth, although the animal died shortly after due to several birth defects in its lungs.

When we carefully examine the pros and cons of de-extinction, it is clear that there are open-ended conclusions that both sides can draw upon as they make their argument. There may be a day when this work is inevitable. That means the question involves a "can we" vs. a "should we" debate where individual perspectives will vary, and no definitive conclusion may ever become available.

Author Bio
Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Biggest Pros and Cons of De-Extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In February 2017, scientists announced plans to create a live wooly mammoth in the next 24 months through a process known as de-extinction. When a plant or animal goes extinct, then every member of that species has died. Some of these animals are quite famous, like the Tasmanian tiger and the Mauritius dodo bird.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
6 pros of de-exctintion (benefits)
Arguments/facts:
- There could be environmental benefits to consider with de-extinction.
- It provides a unique opportunity to experience the past.
-It gives us the foundation for more technological advances.
-The information generated from de-extinction would help us preserve more species.

Dialog:
So basically the just say things about global warming and all that but I don't get how they are going to benefit us. Since some animals create CO2, so maybe the predictions are wrong and they will also create CO2 with their gases.

Summary:
There are several environmental and social benefits to consider with this process. It also provides a unique opportunity to experience the past through the eyes of those who were alive at the time. The 100-year Starship Program encourages the development of new technologies and processes that would make such a journey possible. We could experience the same advantage when working toward the restoration of species through de-extinction. The techniques that we use to bring back extinct animals can apply to our threatened and endangered species.
APA:
Editor in Chief. (2019, September 20). 13 Biggest Pros and Cons of De-Extinction. ConnectUS. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://connectusfund.org/13-biggest-pros-and-cons-of-de-extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In February 2017, scientists announced plans to create a live wooly mammoth in the next 24 months through a process known as de-extinction. When a plant or animal goes extinct, then every member of that species has died. Some of these animals are quite famous, like the Tasmanian tiger and the Mauritius dodo bird.

De-extinction makes it possible to bring an extinct species back to life through the DNAL cloning process. The team that wants to bring back the wooly mammoth, which includes George Church of Harvard University, will use DNA taken from the bodies of the animals trapped in permafrost or ice for up to 10,000 years. Then they plan to mix that genetic information with that of the ancient animal's closest relative, the Asian elephant.

DNA has a half-life of 521 years, which means it is only 50% viable after that amount of time. Since the last known living wooly mammoth died at least 4,000 years ago, the only way to resurrect the animal is to use a current one. The dodo and the Tasmanian tiger might have different results.

List of the Pros of De-Extinction

1. It would give us access to a bevy of new scientific information.
Many of the animals that have gone extinct on our planet passed away before modern science developed. That means we are left with illustrations and observations from those who were alive at the time. Using the de-extinction process to bring them back would allow us to gain more insights into how our world works. This work could help us to discover how the processes of evolution work, what natural resources were once available, and additional information that is not currently available to us.

2. There could be environmental benefits to consider with de-extinction.
There are several damaged and threatened ecosystems throughout the world that struggle because of plant or animal extinction. If we follow this process, then the advantage to consider includes restoration. By creating the balance in the biome once again that nature needs, we could see several environmental benefits begin to develop. It could help to reduce or eliminate some of the issues that we are encountering in the world today when there are too many predators or too much prey.

3. It provides a unique opportunity to experience the past.
For Generation X'ers, Baby Boomers and even some Millennials, the only experience they have with the past are pictures that are in textbooks. Everyone knows what a wooly mammoth is and when they lived, but that is a different experience than contemplating the idea of creating a new one. There is a definite advantage to consider when getting to hang out with the species that have been gone for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. To see them alive and kicking again would be a tremendous accomplishment for humanity.

4. We can provide a measure of justice for the planet.
There are several species that have encountered extinction because of human activities, including poaching. If we are the ones that have pushed specific animals and plants past the brink of destruction, then proponents suggest that there is an equal responsibility to fix the problem. We might owe it to those that have passed on to bring them back as a way to provide a sense of justice for our behaviors.

5. It gives us the foundation for more technological advances.
The 100-year Starship Program is a process that does more than look at the idea of building a vessel that can travel throughout our solar system. It encourages the development of new technologies and processes that would make such a journey possible. We could experience the same advantage when working toward the restoration of species through de-extinction. The genetic engineering process could develop tremendously when our emphasis is on the restoration of a specific species, much like Church's team with the wooly mammoth.

6. The information generated from de-extinction would help us preserve more species.
The techniques that we use to bring back extinct animals can apply to our threatened and endangered species as well. It would be a way to help us bring back genetics to a plant or animal gene line so that the risk of a bottleneck is severely reduced. Although there are certainly some risks to consider with this practice, we could apply the technology to various improvements in animal health too. Imagine birds that can't catch the flu or animals that could provide anti-cancer genes.

List of the Cons of De-Extinction

1. This process continues the issue of exploitation.
One of the primary reasons why animals have gone extinct in modern times is because humans have exploited them. There are several plants that have gone through the same process. If we begin the work of de-extinction, then are we not still exploiting life for purposes that are solely ours? Critics suggest that the idea of bringing back species could cause even more harm to them and our planet, even if they are some biome balancing benefits that could begin to appear over time.

2. There is the threat of new disease with de-extinction.
When an entire species goes extinct, then the diseases that impacted their health disappear from the planet. Going through the process of de-extinction could cause some of the pathogens, bacteria, or viruses to come back with them. We have no way of knowing if there would be human contagions associated with some of the creatures, especially if they come from the ancient world. Although it is a tragedy that many species have gone extinct over time, it may be safer for human health to avoid this area of science altogether.

3. It may not change biomes or environments for the better.
If we can immediately restore an extinct species to its usual environment, then there is the potential to maintain homeostasis there. When there are several hundred years that have passed before the de-extinction process occurs, then the results could be very different. The returning species would be potentially alien to the environment because of the natural evolutionary process. Some might even act as an invasive species. Habitats change over time. Food sources may not even be available to some returning plants or animals. That means their roles in the new ecosystems would change too.

4. This work could change scientific priorities in other fields.
Our current work in most fields involves looking at how the current environment can help us all to live healthy lives. If we progress toward work that involves de-extinction, then our priorities in conservation or medical research might shift. Critics suggest that there would be no reason to start funding endangered species programs because we could restore them if they become extinct for some reason. There would likely be a whole set of complicated legal issues with this practice as well, with the costs of litigation potentially higher than the work needed to bring back plants or animals that have passed away already.

5. There could be unforeseen consequences to these actions.
The idea of de-extinction to some is simple science, but to others, this practice is one that is comparable to playing God. Is it wrong to bring something back that is no longer present on our planet? The unforeseen consequences that could happen when animals like the wooly mammoth come back could put our planet on the brink of turmoil. It may even impact how each of us approaches life. We are already seeing industries pop up that offer to clone your dog or cat for you. Could humans be next?

6. De-extinction could cause even more species to go extinct.
In a review of the key points of de-extinction for New Zealand, writer Jenna Small notes for Science Glory that there are new risks that would occur for our current species with this process. "To resurrect New Zealand's 11 extinct species, three times as many endangered species would go extinct," she writes. "...[T]he cost to bring back five extinct species from New South Wales could help to preserve up to 42 living species."

The cost of de-extinction is a significant disadvantage that is not always discussed. Estimated conservation costs for the warblers on Chatham Island is somewhere near $400,000. That expense is significantly less than what it would take to go through the de-extinction process.

7. It would force the new animals to live in captivity.
When we look at the de-extinction process, the reality of this work is that each animal born from it will already be in captivity. Even Church's wooly mammoth team admits that the goal of the program, if successful, would be to keep the animals with their Asian elephant parents in zoos until they were old enough to establish herds in the colder climate areas of the planet.

We also know that it is an exceptionally slow process. The 24-month deadline to create a wooly mammoth has come and gone without full success. The next steps that Church's team must take are to reprogram the fibroblasts into induced pluripotent cells and development tissue types that help them to study the impact of mammoth mutations on cell traits.

The idea of bringing back extinct species is exciting. It is a scientific accomplishment that could change the world in many positive ways. There is also a lot of work that we must still do before we can produce the first generation of any species that has already passed away.

We have so far been quite unsuccessful with our efforts in this scientific field, but progress is happening. A 2009 effort to bring back a Pyrenean Ibex resulted in a live birth, although the animal died shortly after due to several birth defects in its lungs.

When we carefully examine the pros and cons of de-extinction, it is clear that there are open-ended conclusions that both sides can draw upon as they make their argument. There may be a day when this work is inevitable. That means the question involves a "can we" vs. a "should we" debate where individual perspectives will vary, and no definitive conclusion may ever become available.

Author Bio
Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Biggest Pros and Cons of De-Extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In February 2017, scientists announced plans to create a live wooly mammoth in the next 24 months through a process known as de-extinction. When a plant or animal goes extinct, then every member of that species has died. Some of these animals are quite famous, like the Tasmanian tiger and the Mauritius dodo bird.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:

How can we revive animals that are not used to today's conditions?

Argument/facts:
Researchers have successfully encoded the genome of the Tasmanian tiger. And they plan to try to revive many more animals.

Dialog:
People can have a lot of opinions about this subject. People can think that is a very good idea to revive animals for our own benefit. Also, people can think that reviving animals can save our planet, for example, climate change, global warming, etc.

Summary:
On this website, the scientists have announced a breakthrough in the battle to save the northern white rhino, which is on the verge of exemption. Cutting-edge reproductive and stem cell technology has produced embryos from frozen sperm from the northern white rhino and eggs from the closely related southern white rhino.
Finally, he says that being able to revive some animals in order to save the world is a good idea. But we always have to know what we are doing and why we would be doing it.

APA Style:
Ruby Russell, 06.07.2018, ¿Deberíamos resucitar especies extinguidas?  Retrieved from: https://www.dw.com/es/deber%C3%ADamos-resucitar-especies-extinguidas/a-44561557

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Esta semana, los científicos anunciaron un gran avance en la batalla para salvar al rinoceronte blanco del norte, que está al borde de la exención.

El último macho de la especie murió a principios de este año, reduciendo la población total a solo dos hembras. Pero ahora, la tecnología de células madre y reproductiva de vanguardia ha producido embriones a partir de espermatozoides congelados del rinoceronte blanco del norte y óvulos del estrechamente relacionado rinoceronte blanco del sur.

"Estos son los primeros embriones de rinoceronte producidos in vitro. Tienen una alta probabilidad de establecer un embarazo una vez implantados en una madre sustituta", dijo Thomas Hildebrandt, uno de los científicos del proyecto.

La noticia ofrece una esperanza tentadora de que los avances científicos puedan corregir los errores del pasado, dando a las criaturas aniquiladas por los humanos una segunda oportunidad.

Pero solo porque podamos hacer algo, ¿significa que debemos hacerlo?

Uno de los dos últimos rinocerontes blancos del norte.
¿Parque del pleistoceno o Jurassic Park?
Los científicos ya han creado embriones con material genético de la recientemente extinta rana rheobatrachus, y en 2003 un clon de la última hembra del bucardo, una cabra montesa de los pirineos, que nació de una cabra, aunque solo sobrevivió unos pocos minutos.

Pero los científicos también están poniendo sus ojos en criaturas que no han caminado por la tierra durante cientos, o incluso miles de años.

Los investigadores han decodificado con éxito el genoma del tigre de Tasmania, que fue visto por última vez vivo en 1936, y esperan poder reeditar sus genes en los óvulos de un marsupial superviviente, como su primo más cercano, el numbat.

Y un equipo de la Universidad de Harvard está trabajando para traer al mamut de vuelta del reino de los muertos a vivir en un "Parque del Pleistoceno" en Siberia.

Dos tigres de Tasmania en un zoológico estadounidense en 1905.

"Restore & Revive", una organización que promueve la "desextinción", favorece el rescate de genes por encima de la clonación. Se identifican los genes que diferencian una especie extinta de otra que sobrevive y se transforman en el genoma del animal vivo.

Ben Novak, científico de "Restore & Revive", está trabajando en la inserción de genes de la extinta paloma migratoria en el ADN de una paloma de collar.

"Escondidas en el genoma de las palomas migratorias están las mutaciones clave para lograr que un ave de hoy se convierta en lo que era una paloma migratoria", dice a DW. "Esa es la idea. No se trata de copiar, se trata de una recreación, de una nueva versión".
El nuevo mamut: elefantes con más pelo
En el caso del mamut, los genes del pelaje abundante, las orejas pequeñas, la grasa subcutánea y la "sangre anticongelante" que le permitían sobrevivir en temperaturas bajo cero se "reeditarán" en el genoma de un elefante asiático, su pariente más cercano superviviente.

Los críticos argumentan que el animal resultante no sería un mamut como tal, sino algún tipo de quimera que quizás tenga o no tenga posibilidades de sobrevivir en el mundo moderno. O, como dice Britt Wray, autora de "Rise of the Necrofauna - la Ciencia, la Ética y los Riesgos de la desextinción": "un elefante con un corte de pelo gracioso que puede vivir más al norte".
Restauración de antiguos ecosistemas
Cuando una especia desaparece, todo el ecosistema se perturba. "Los ecosistemas no solo son más complejos de lo que pensamos actualmente, sino que son más complejos de lo que nos podemos imaginar", dice Britt Wray. "No se trata de un escenario 'plug-and-play' donde quitas una variable y luego la vuelves a añadir para volver al estado original".

Los críticos de la "ciencia de la resurrección" argumentan en su mayoría con el "riesgo moral". Tratar de recuperar especies perdidas es, según ellos, una negación de la finalidad catastrófica de la extinción. Algo que nos podría hacer pensar que podemos retroceder el tiempo.

Autor: Ruby Russell (GG)

Deutsche Welle es la emisora internacional de Alemania y produce periodismo independiente en 30 idiomas. Síganos en Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
¿Deberíamos resucitar especies extinguidas? | DW | 06.07.2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Esta semana, los científicos anunciaron un gran avance en la batalla para salvar al rinoceronte blanco del norte, que está al borde de la exención. El último macho de la especie murió a principios de este año, reduciendo la población total a solo dos hembras.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
Bring back the mammoth or other mamals. And benefits of bringing them back.
Arguments/facts:
- To decelerate melting in the artics
- To prevent the emission of greenhouse gases trapped within the permafrost layer - up to 600 million tons of net carbon annually.
- To understand the dominant traits among cold-resistant genomes.
- To save modern elephants from extinction.

Dialog:
I think reviving them is a good idea because they can help the climate change decelerate. Also we could have new wool: better, more resistant, etc... So then we could stop exploiting as much as we do know sheeps or other animals that give us wool.

Summary:
Reviving the woolly mammoth is a good thing, becuase they could decelerate climate change and a lot more. Also reviving them wouldn't be the only one, so if we revive the wolly mammoth we could revive other extincted animals.
APA:
Maven Creative. (n.d.). May Prehistory Thunder Forward: the Resurrection of the Woolly Mammoth. Woolly Mammoth De-Extinction Project & Process | Colossal. Retrieved January 26, 2022, from https://colossal.com/mammoth/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover Colossal’s mammoth de-extinction project, process and progress. Learn the facts about reviving the woolly mammoth, a vital defender of earth.

# data[].attributes.headline
Resucitar el mamut: ¿Puede hacerse? ¿Debe hacerse?

# data[].attributes.subject
Resucitar el mamut: ¿Puede hacerse? ¿Debe hacerse?

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
Reviving mammoths to fight global warming.

Arguments/facts:

Crossing the DNA of an Asian elephant with a woolly mammoth with the goal of bringing the mammoth back to life and sending it to the arctic tundra.

Dialog:
If what they are saying is right, I think that is a very good idea because global warming is the most important problem that we have with the world. Only we need to be sure that this process is the right one. Finally, be sure that these animals can't bring any type of virus or disease.

Summary:
George Church, an American genetic engineering star, wants to bring mammoths back to fight global warming.
George Church, an American genetic engineering star, wants to bring mammoths back to fight global warming. The idea that mammoths could help save permafrost dates back some 20 years.

APA:
Sébastian Seibt, 16/09/2021, ¿Revivir al mamut para luchar contra el calentamiento global?, Retrieved form: https://www.france24.com/es/medio-ambiente/20210916-revivir-mamut-combate-calentamiento-global-permafrost

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
La empresa estadounidense Colossal anunció haber recaudado 15 millones de dólares para "resucitar" a los mamuts con el objetivo de proteger el permafrost, esas partes del suelo que nunca se descongelan. Este viejo sueño de la ingeniería genética, que consiste sobre todo en manipular los genes del elefante para salvar el clima, es cuestionable...

Desde hace varios años sueña con resucitar a los mamuts. Ahora, George Church, una estrella estadounidense de la ingeniería genética que trabaja en la Universidad de Harvard, quiere traerlos de regreso para luchar contra el calentamiento global. Tan simple como eso.

Junto con el empresario estadounidense Ben Lamm, anunció el pasado 13 de septiembre haber recaudado 15 millones de dólares para fundar la empresa Colossal y dedicarse a la resurrección de estos mamíferos, que desaparecieron hace 4.000 años.
El mamut: más muerto que vivo
El proyecto que George Church le vendió a inversionistas tan diversos como Thomas Hull, jefe del estudio de producción Legendary Entertainment (detrás de películas como 'Jurassic Park' y 'Godzilla'), el fondo de inversión Animal Capital o incluso los hermanos Winklevoss, famosos por haber apoyado a Facebook al principio, parece sencillo.

Consiste en cruzar el ADN de un elefante de Asia con el de un mamut lanudo con el objetivo de devolverle la vida a este último y enviarlo a la tundra ártica, donde estos animales evitarían que el permafrost se derrita y libere al aire grandes cantidades de CO2, lo cual agravaría el calentamiento global.

La idea de que los mamuts -u otros grandes mamíferos de la era glaciar- puedan contribuir a salvar el permafrost se remonta a unos 20 años atrás.

Durante la época en la cual estos ancestros de los elefantes paseaban por la tundra, solían aplastar la hierba y el musgo en el suelo, tumbar árboles y aplanar la nieve. Sin quererlo, de esta manera contribuían a que el permafrost se mantuviera lo más frío posible: el musgo no conduce tan bien el calor como los árboles en verano y la nieve aplastada aísla menos el subsuelo del frío ambiente en invierno que la nieve en polvo, explicaba Paul Mann, un geógrafo británico en un artículo publicado por la página web The Conversation en 2018.

Incluso, desde 1996 se ha llevado a cabo un experimento en tamaño real en pleno corazón de Siberia, donde zoólogos rusos tienen "en 16 km2 la tundra de la época de los mamuts", cuenta Charlotte Wrigley, una investigadora de la universidad Queen Mary de Londres que visitó esta reserva, contactada por France 24. "Introdujeron animales existentes que habrían podido evolucionar en ese ambiente durante esa época para observar el efecto en el permafrost, y los primeros resultados fueron más bien positivos", resalta.
No es "des-extinción"
George Church y sus grandes sueños de mamuts resucitados para la gran causa climática se inscriben dentro de este razonamiento. Pero el proyecto de Colossal debe ser manejado con cuidado, según varios especialistas entrevistados por France 24.

En primer lugar, "no se trata de resucitar a los mamuts, sino esencialmente de modificar genéticamente a los elefantes, introduciendo unos cuantos cientos de genes de mamuts lanudos", resalta Love Dalén, investigador del Centro de Paleogenética de Estocolmo y especialista en el ADN del mamut, contactado por France 24.

El animal que los equipos de Colossal quieren crear ni siquiera sería una nueva especie o un híbrido, sino simplemente un elefante de Asia potenciado con el ADN del mamut para soportar mejor el frío.

Si bien a los abogados de estas manipulaciones genéticas les gusta hablar de resucitar -o más precisamente de "des-extinguir" ("de-extinct" en inglés) - al mamut, es "porque es un término emocionalmente más cargado que da la impresión de que se trabaja por una causa noble: regresarle la vida a una especie que, para algunos, habría desaparecido en parte por culpa del ser humano", apunta Charlotte Wrigley.

Una manera de presentar las cosas que puede parecer moralmente más aceptable ante los ojos del gran público que la realidad: "Estos trabajos tienen el objetivo de manipular el código genético, con una manera de proceder que no tiene nada de natural, lo cual no quiere decir que esté bien o mal, sino que supone otra serie de preguntas éticas y científicas", resume Victoria Herridge, especialista en biología de la evolución del Museo de Historia Natural de Londres, contactada por France 24.
Éticamente cuestionable
Y una de esas preguntas, desde un punto de vista científico, es encontrar los genes de los mamuts que podrían ayudar a los elefantes a tener ese pelaje de lana que los protege mejor del frío ártico. En efecto, "actualmente, no se tiene ninguna idea de lo que, genéticamente hablando, le permitiría a los mamuts tener esa resistencia al frío. Y descubrirlo para que los elefantes se beneficien de ello requerirá de mucho trabajo", afirma Love Dalén.

Éticamente, este investigador tampoco está convencido de la legitimidad de esta metodología. Actualmente, el único medio para hacerlo sería extraer un óvulo de una elefante hembra con el objetivo de inyectar ADN de mamut. Pero "los elefantes ya están en peligro de extinción y se debería dejar que las hembras tengan crías de elefante para darle a la especie las mejores oportunidades posibles de supervivencia", afirma el investigador sueco.

George Church y sus equipos son conscientes de este dilema ético y Colossal asegura que la cría llegaría al mundo gracias a un útero artificial y a un óvulo sintético. Pero en este caso, también se trata de una tecnología "que todavía no se domina", resalta Victoria Herridge.

Sin embargo, el intento vale la pena porque el objetivo sería proteger el clima contra la bomba de tiempo que dormita bajo el permafrost. Salvo que el objetivo anunciado "es ridículo", sostiene Love Dalén. "No hay la más mínima prueba científica de que una manada de mamuts salve el permafrost de la tundra ártica", añade.

El experimento llevado a cabo en Siberia desde hace 20 años no constituye una prueba científica y es "meramente anecdótica", afirma Dalén, si bien considera muy interesante su observación.
Científicamente prometedor
Incluso aunque existiera la prueba, un solo mamut no haría la diferencia. "Se necesitaría entonces un programa de repoblación de una gran magnitud y es difícil creer que tendremos el tiempo ante la emergencia climática", explica Victoria Herridge.

No obstante, y paradójicamente, todos los científicos entrevistados piensan que las investigaciones realizadas por Colossal pueden resultar muy importantes, incluso cruciales. "Seguramente habrá avances científicos que resultarán de esos trabajos, que nos permitan entender mejor las técnicas de modificación genética", afirma Victoria Herridge.

Avances que tal vez puedan darle al ser humano las herramientas necesarias para salvar especies amenazadas. "Hay especies en peligro que están condenadas a desaparecer, salvo si logramos modificar sus genes", asegura Love Dalén. En efecto, estudios han demostrado que hay más riesgos de que aparezcan enfermedades genéticas graves en el seno de especies con pocos miembros. Para estos animales, las técnicas de edición genética desarrolladas para "resucitar" al mamut podrían cambiar la situación.

Este es un objetivo ambicioso en sí mismo, no es necesario prometer la Luna y los mamuts. Pero tal vez para atraer a los inversionistas se debía soñar en grande. ¿Y qué más imponente que un mítico mamut?
Este artículo fue adaptado de su original en francés

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
¿Revivir al mamut para luchar contra el calentamiento global?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
La empresa estadounidense Colossal anunció haber recaudado 15 millones de dólares para "resucitar" a los mamuts con el objetivo de proteger el permafrost, esas partes del suelo que nunca se descongelan. Este viejo sueño de la ingeniería genética, que consiste sobre todo en manipular los genes del elefante para salvar el clima, es cuestionable...