|
Author
|
Topic: Thylacines and cloning.
|
ThyalcineX
Member
|
posted 03-05-2008 09:15
 
Hello, all. I was reading today a book called Carnivorous Nights, about a bunch of people looking for thylacines and not finding any. At one point, thye were talking to a bushwhaker named Col. Col beleived that thylaciens were still around and had heard them at night (he thought). But he was dead-set against the thylacine cloning project. Here is a direct quote: "It's going to be a clinical tiger. It will be sickly and diseased, not one you can stick in the bush. It will be an imposter without natural instincts. People should be looking for tigers, not making them."
This is just plain wrong on so many levels. First of all, let me state that I see nothing inherently wrong with cloning--even human eproductive cloning, though I know many people do. But that's another topic, not for this forum. When I first read there were people agsint the cloning project, I suspected that the people agsint cloning the thylacine must be sheep farmers. But I now realize most were probably people who just don't like cloning.
I believe the reason Col and others feel this way about cloning is a fear of the unknown. It's new and "unnatual" so people overstate the possible risks, and tend to ignore the advantages. I could (and have) written a whole paper discussing the fear of science in general, butlet's look at Col's description of a "clinical" tiger. I would think other animals would be cloned prior to the thylacine tiself, like devils and quolls, to ensure these animals were born healthy. In fact, very many placental maamsl, including primates have been cloned at this date. The reprots of sicly cloned animals has been exagerated, but now all these animals are born without any healthproblems related to the cloning process. Why should the thylacine be any different? About the the "natural instincts" part, a thylacine clone would have all its' instincts intact, as much as a cub born in the wild. It would be no more or less adaptable to the wild than any other animal reared in captivity. Why does Col think otherwise. Then he calls such an animal an "imposter." He seems to ahrbor a prejudice here that an animal conceived throuhg cloning is somehow "unnnatural", and therefore inferior to a "naturally" born animal merely becasue of the manner of it's conception. There's nothing sceintific about this. Col may not know it, but it's this same basic attitude that may allow human clones (if and when they exist) to suffer prejudcial barbs. After all, they're not "naturally" made, and therefore "imposters".
Col beleivers wild thylacines are still out there. I very seriously doubt this. Reading this book has only confirmed my belief. There are bushwackers who have spent years out there and never found a trace. Back when David Fleay nearly caught a survivor, they were still finding hairs and footprints positively identified as those of a thylacine. But no longer. The "sightings" that occur nowadays appear to be the work of our collective desire that the animal still exists. Mr. Col appears to be a man genuiely concerned with the possible survival of this unique animal, and I appreciate him for this very greatly. As far as the thylacine's continued existence, I sincerely hope he is correct. But really fear very much he is deluding himself. Cloning may be the only hope for the thylacine's survival. I beleive that Col has allowed his fears about "Moral trespass" (or whaever his fears are)blind himself to reality. Movies like Jurassic Park and Godsend warn again and agian that cloning can only unleash horrors. But they don't really provide wanrings, only reflect the public's fears. IP: Logged | |
The Tasmanian Tiger Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
