How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-Extinction by Beth Shapiro. Copyright 2015 Princeton University Press. New Jersey.
ISBN 978-0-691-15705-4
Recommended: 5 Star.
I read this book as a pre-release e-book obtained through NetGalley, provided by the publisher.
The book's title certainly gets attention because producing living, giant mammals such as mammoths would get a lot of attention. However, quickly the reader is led to having more realistic expectations of what is being done, or can currently or in the foreseeable future be possible to do to re-create extinct species. I personally found the book to be a fascinating read.
Of course, tiny improvements in the various sciences or discoveries which make de-extinction more plausible make big headlines. However, closer examination shows that many of these things are not possible with current technology nor with existing scientific knowledge. Possibly they could be. But, headlines of "Scientists will soon clone a mammoth" attract much more attention than, "Scientists breed rats which could live where extinct kangaroo rats did."
Technological and scientific challenges of sequencing ancient DNA were discussed, and, contrary to popular opinion, we have only barely scratched the surface of DNA sequencing of living organisms, including our own and other organisms which are important or detrimental to us. We have a lot more to learn in this regard! Specifically though, the prospect of getting any DNA from long-extinct creatures, such as dinosaurs out of fossils, is not possible. Jurassic Park will forever remain in the realm of science fiction.
Certainly, cloning, or genetically-engineering cells to grow into creatures which are identical to other creatures which are extinct is appealing. However, it may not be possible, and even if it is possible, it might not be the most efficient or economical way to get a creature to take up the biological niche that an extinct species did. Genetic engineering is a controversial topic, and plants or animals which were de-extincted in this fashion might be regulated as GMOs. There was a long discussion of this in the book about what these would be, legally: Endangered species, or would they be GMOs - or would they if they were not intended as food? It might be more efficient to use more tried-and-true technologies such as selective breeding or back-breeding to produce varieties of existing animals or plants which would have similar traits, and take the same ecological niche as the extinct species did. For instance, the ecological effects of having a large, elephant-like mammal roaming the northern tundras and sub-Arctic were explored, but if we selectively bred Asian elephants which are most-closely related to mammoths or even African elephants so they could live and stay warm enough in cold climates, might this not have the same effect? Would it matter if they were not actually the same species as the mammoths that dominated these cold regions thousands or tens of thousands of years ago? The author believes not. It also would not have the same sensationalistic popular appeal, and would not attract donors. Indeed, this could be an expensive project.
Cloning technology may offer one more tool in the ecologist's toolbox to ensure that recently-extinct species are not gone forever once the last one dies. It may be possible to produce a small number of them. Recreating populations in this manner also has challenges, not the least of which would be that they would need to be bred in captivity for at least some time, then protected once they got out.
Much of the book involves ecology. If a species goes extinct, might it cause other species to also go extinct, or might it cause the proliferation of some other species, to the point where they become a pest and cause problems of their own? It also explores how this could cause animal suffering, such as using a smaller animal to gestate a larger one, or harvesting eggs from a female for use in cloning. This will become less of a problem once artificial wombs that can gestate these clones is invented, but it's not here now.
What are all of the ecological ramifications of de-extincting various lifeforms? Is it wise? Why did it go extinct to begin with, and why won't that immediately repeat? Certainly, some things, such as smallpox, are best left extinct. Re-extincting other, beneficial creatures may have ecological effects too, and it might take their former environment some time to re-adapt to their presence, just as it did to their absence.