Cloning To Stop Extinction To Leatherback Turtles?

[Plenoptic 0]

Malaysia is trying to think of a way to help keep the endangered leatherback turtles from becoming extinct. Overpopulation and pollution has caused them to start to die off and their eggs aren't fertile anymore. Scientists have come up with the idea to clone them. They are a reptile though and reptiles have never been cloned before, only mammals. The project will cost about $9 million and may still fail. So should it be done? It could save the species that swam with the dinosaurs. I partly think they should to save the species and allow it to continue out it's life, but then I also think it shouldn't because it'd interfere with it's natural course in life. They have to do something to save them though, and preservation won't help much if their eggs won't hatch.

Article: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Edited July 15, 2007 by Plenoptic (see edit history)

[TikiPrincess 0]

I think that cloning is only a part of the solution, but it's not going to fix the problems that brought the turtles to this state. When a species is allowed to reproduce unchecked, they will overpopulate and exceed their carrying capacity. Population spikes then drops, hardly ever rising back to its original level. If they are going to clone this turtle, they need to make sure that they provide an environment that allows this species to thrive while stabalizing it at the same time. Natural predators should be allowed to hunt, food source should be plentiful, and hatching grounds should be protected as well. I know that in a few of the US national parks, they issue a specific number of hunting licenses to control the deer population. I think they do something similar in Australia for the kangaroos. It's not meant to be cruel to animals, it's simply controlling the population in order to protect the cycle and flow of nature.Anyways, this kinda reminded me of that movie Titan A.E. where the spaceship contained the DNA of every species from Earth. They used the DNA to clone everything from plants to animals in order to recreate the world that had been destroyed.

[salamangkero 0]

I, too, agree that cloning is just part of the solution. For one, it is still an imperfect art in the making; just because we have successfully cloned a few species does not necessarily mean we can do all of 'em. Also, I will only consent to cloning only if conducted under the strictest regulating mechanisms, that is, implementing the most stringent measures not to impact the environment too significantly to cause irreversible imbalance.

 

I think, if cloning were to be conducted, it would be a prudent idea never to allow clones to be integrated into the ecosystem. Now, I am not quite familiar with the mating habits of the leatherback turtles or where they lay their eggs but a quick browse through trusty Wikipedia revealed to me that, like all their other reptilian kin, they also lay eggs in beaches.

 

The problem I'm getting at is that clones have always been shown to have weaknesses associated with aging. Dolly, the first cloned sheep exhibited symptoms of old-age disorders at a very young age. The fact still remains that we are not cloning "new babies" but simply creating copies of "withering grandmas" (My apologies for all persons of advanced age or female sex) In other words, if those turtles were to be cloned, they would be more susceptible to illnesses and diseases, which could, in turn, decimate the remaining leatherback sea turtle population, should a contagion come up.

 

It is my humble opinion that these clones be kept under captivity for the rest of their lives; their sole purpose would be to repopulate the seas with their kind. Let us allow them to lay eggs in captivity. Then we transfer the eggs into a protected beach. These little ones will then hatch and begin life on their own. They don't need their mum and dad for that, right?

 

Also, I don't think this would be suitable as a sustained effort. For one, the sheer cost would have a lot of people griping about misappropriated government funds. Another thing is that we cannot be too sure of its impact on the environment; for all we know, the consequences of our actions might manifest a decade or so later. In any case, I believe this is something that, if done, should be more of a wait-and-see thing.

 

I'm sure, though, that lots of animal rights movement groups would gripe when they hear of these "breeders" in captivity. They'd clamor about rights to freedom, and so on, not knowing that the freedom of these clones could mean the devastation of the entire specie. Not that I'm saying all animal rights activist groups are idiots who can't do their research but, yeah, I am saying that some of them are.

 

Anyway, I'm not here to ridicule or insult groups. What I'm saying is that I believe cloning is part of the solution and it should be conducted under the strictest conditions

[arnz 0]

Cloning might be a solution to stop the leatherback turtles from coming extinct, but it's not going to solve the problems which caused the bit of overpopulation in the first place. All I can say is if they are going to clone those type of turtles at least do it in a controlled environment rather than let loose, population spikes up again, then drops again to a point where people are going to be concerned that those turtles will go extinct again.

[csp4.0 1]

yes, and they should get a male and female turtle, ok:m=malef=femalec=clonedo=originalb=baby turtlemc+fc=b-> b=cbmo/fo+cb=bcb1+cb2=b/fo/mo+cb2you'll get the idea, you should never keep cloning one kind of turtle as the small amounts of information will be lost during this cloning process

[velma 6]

Hi,I voted Yes but like the other members have pointed out..The cloning is just a temporary solution. It still does not solve the problem of poaching the and destruction of their homes. I mean people are still gonna poach the turtles and we cant exactly clone hundreds of turtles in a week and besides the turtles might be kept in a zoo or a special shelter for their own safety or for testing and further cloning so the zoos/shelters are gonna get over crowded :DAnother good point mentioned is the genetics part of the cloning process. We can clone the turtle but the genetics are something we cant control yet so you might end up a result where chances of the baby is quite less so they might want to kill it. Also specific turtles are chosen for the cloning i.e they are selected by looking at the past so again there is a chance of the clone getting a disease that was maybe dormant/hidden in the parents.The idea of a clone is really good but you have to think about the habitat, nutrition and health of the turtles. Like salamagkero mentioned there would be protests from many animal groups on the ethics of cloning so even that flaw has to be smoothened. They should clone the turtle but not for saving the species for it is a complicated and expensive process but for studies of genetics in turtles until they find a way to balance out the whole thing perfectly

[salamangkero 0]

m=male

f=female

c=cloned

o=original

b=baby turtle

mc+fc=b-> b=cb

mo/fo+cb=b

cb1+cb2=b/fo/mo+cb2

I can't quite grasp the exact meaning of those equations but I think I do get the gist of it, depending heavily on context cues I hope no one takes offense as I take the liberty of expounding this...

 

I do agree that cloning just one turtle will not be enough. Even if we created a million clones, it's not a matter of how many we make but how many we start out with. This is the very same reason why (heterosexual) incest or inbreeding is not considered a wise idea. By mating people from the same gene pool, we create future generations that have the same or similar traits. While it may be desirable to ensure that positive traits like superior strength, Sharingan or Byakugan, inbreeding also has a side effect, in which a gene-based weakness to certain types of pathogens, say, a certain strain of virus, perhaps, will render the entire clan susceptible to the same threat. This is quite opposite the desired effect of sexual breeding, which is to introduce variety into the gene pool, ensuring better chances for survival for the species.

 

Now, breeding a severely limited number of clones is a lot like inbreeding. In order to, at least, buffer the severe effects of matig between clones, a person (yeah right) or an organization has to have several sources of genetic material, in other words, clone more individuals, not create more copies

[ktPatriot 0]

Our cloning technology is not that mature. There exists hidden traps behind cloning. We do not know what we will create. What if those cloned turtles can swim so fast by fault that they eat all the fish in the ocean (remember, 47 years later, there will be no fish if we do not stop over-fishing)?Cloning can be a way but this should be the desperate move. As long as there are 1 male and 1 female, we should breed instead of clone.

Edited January 2, 2008 by ktPatriot (see edit history)