Cloning a Modern-Day Woolly Mammoth

                            

Can Mammoth Blood Enable Cloning?

The above link will bring you to National Geographic's article on how a new female mammoth carcass discovery could potentially lead to a modern-day cloning of the extinct species. Cloning extinct species is an absolutely fascinating concept to me; I am amazed and perplexed at the idea that it is even possible to resurrect animals which otherwise may never have been seen again. While I am completely in favor of saving species from extinction, the idea of 'de-extinction' really worries me.

According to the article, 'various scientific groups are aiming to recreate species such as the woolly mammoth, passenger pigeon, and mouth-brooding frog'. Aside from the mystical Frankenstein-esque connotation these attempts at recreation bring to mind, what frightens me is that I see cloning as a potential excuse to skip prevention of extinction in the first place. While I understand that cloning is often considered a scientific backup plan just in case a species is obliterated from the environment, it's a cushion that could lead to complacency in terms of protecting species abuse and habitat loss. Also, the article mentions that complications often result in the cloning process, as 'birth defects... cause clones to have relatively short lives after birth. A recently cloned Pyrenean ibex—a horned, hoofed mammal that went extinct in 2000—died only a few minutes after it was born'.

The ethics of the cloning process are quite questionable. So-called 'species revival' may not be much of a revival at all; even if we did clone a woolly mammoth, there is no guarantee that it would display the same characteristic actions or habits, 'given the complicated influences of development and environment' that determine what an organism is.

In short, I agree with Jacquelyn Gill, a paleoecology postdoctorate at Brown University, when she says, 'It's irresponsible to put limited conservation dollars into bringing an Ice Age species into a warming world where dozens of elephants have been slaughtered just this year for their ivory'.

How Important is Corn?

                                                       

    How important is corn in our diet? Surprisingly, corn is apparent everywhere has a huge prevalence in our lives. Nearly every processed food contains some form of corn, from the obvious corn chips to the more discreet chicken nugget composed of corn meal, corn oil, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and nine other corn derivatives. In section I of The Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan explores the incredible idea that America's basic grocery list revolves around a single crop. About 75% of all supermarket items are composed of corn, from the plant itself to corn syrup, beer, cereals, chips, meat from animals fed with corn, corn starch, and even in plastics such as the plastic coating on magazine covers. There are 10 billion bushels of corn harvested from the American Corn Belt per day, thanks (or no thanks) to the Haber-Bosch process developed in the 20th century to create ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen, a chemical compound that all life forms need to prosper, one which corn farmers spread as fertilizer. The results from a food science lab's test for corn percentages found in a  McDonald's meal are astonishing:

Soda - 100% corn
Milk Shake - 78%
Salad Dressing - 65%
Chicken Nuggets - 56%
Cheeseburger - 52%
French Fries - 23%
(Pollan 117)

Not only was it surprising to me that 100% of any soda was basically derived from corn in the form of corn syrup, but the immense energy losses due to the creation of processed foods/drink. Only one tenth of the corn calories used to produce a soda is left over in your cup - the other nine-tenths are wasted in the process of creation. This means that valuable calories are lost just in creating a Pepsi.

Agribusiness has a much larger handle on our life and economy than I had ever realized, and with Monsanto controlling GMO's, this is a scary concept to consider.