Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 33:5 | Cite as

Meet the new mammoth, same as the old? Resurrecting the Mammuthus primigenius

  • Monika Piotrowska
Article

Abstract

Media reporters often announce that we are on the verge of bringing back the woolly mammoth, even while there is growing consensus among scientists that resurrecting the mammoth is unlikely. In fact, current “de-extinction” efforts are not designed to bring back a mammoth, but rather adaptations of the mammoth using close relatives. For example, Harvard scientists are working on creating an Asian elephant with the thick coat of a mammoth by merging mammoth and elephant DNA. But how should such creatures be classified? Are they elephants, mammoths, or both? Answering these questions requires getting clear about the concept of reproduction. What I hope to show is that with an appropriate notion of reproduction—one for which I will argue—resurrecting a member of Mammuthus primigenius is a genuine possibility.

Keywords

De-extinction Reproduction Spatiotemporal continuity Species 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Gunner Babcock, Marc Ereshefsky, anonymous reviewers, the editor of this journal, and most of all to Matt Mosdell, for helpful discussion and feedback on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Barnett R (2016) How to own a mammoth. Palaeontol Newsl 92:67–70Google Scholar
  2. Callaway E (2015) Mammoth genomes provide recipe for creating Arctic elephants. Nature 521:18–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell KL, Roberts JE, Watson LN, Statefeld J, Sloan AM, Signore AV et al (2010) Substitutions in woolly mammoth hemoglobin confer biochemical properties adaptive for cold tolerance. Nat Genet 42:536–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Darwin C (1882) On the origin of species by means of natural selection. D. Appleton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. De Queiroz K (2007) Species concepts and species delimitation. Syst Biol 56(6):879–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delord J (2007) The nature of extinction. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 38(3):656–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delord J (2014) Can we really re-create an extinct species by cloning? A metaphysical analysis. In: Oksanen M, Siipi H (eds) The ethics of animal re-creation and modification. Palgrave Macmillan Press, Basingstoke, pp 22–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ereshefsky M (2010) What’s wrong with the new biological essentialism. Philos Sci 77(5):674–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ereshefsky M (2016) Species. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/species/
  10. Folch J, Cocero MJ, Chesne P, Alabart JL, Dominiquez V, Cognie Y et al (2009) First birth of an animal from an extinct subspecies (Capra pyreneica pyrenaica) by cloning. Theriogenology 71(6):1026–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghiselin MT (1974) A radical solution to the species problem. Syst Zool 23:536–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griesemer J (2000a) The units of evolutionary transition. Selection 1–3:67–80Google Scholar
  14. Griesemer J (2000b) Reproduction and the reduction of genetics. In: Beurton P, Falk R, Rheinberger H-J (eds) The concept of the gene in development and evolution: historical and epistemological perspectives. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 240–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griesemer J (2005) The informational gene and the substantial body: on the generalization of evolutionary theory by abstraction. In: Jones MR, Cartwright N (eds) Idealization XII: correcting the model. Idealization and abstraction in the sciences, Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, vol 86. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 59–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griesemer J (2016) Reproduction in complex life cycles: toward a developmental reaction norms perspective. Philos Sci 83(5):803–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunn AS (1991) The restoration of species and natural environments. Environ Ethics 13(4):291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hull D (1976) Are species really individuals? Syst Zool 25:174–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jebari K (2016) Should extinction be forever? Philos Technol 29(3):211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan S (2015) ‘De-extinction’ of the woolly mammoth: a step closer. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/24/de-extinction-and-the-wooly-mammoth-genome/?utm_term=.82dc66e77e15. Retrieved 26 April 2017
  21. Kitcher P (1984) Species. Philos Sci 51(2):308–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knapton S (2017) Woolly mammoth will be back from extinction within 2 years, say Harvard scientists. The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/02/16/harvard-scientists-pledge-bring-back-woolly-mammoth-extinction/. Retrieved 26 April 2017
  23. MacPhee RDE (2015) Day of the (Un)Dead: the de-extinction enterprise. Cell 162(1):11–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pelt-Verkuil E, Belkum A, Hays JP (2008) Principles and technical aspects of PCR amplification. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scholl BJ (2007) Object persistence in philosophy and psychology. Mind Lang 22(5):563–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapiro B (2015) How to clone a mammoth. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shultz D (2016) Should we bring extinct species back from the dead? Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/should-we-bring-extinct-species-back-dead. Retrieved 26 April 2017
  28. Siipi H, Finkelman L (2016) The extinction and de-extinction of species. Philos Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0244-0 Google Scholar
  29. Wilkins J (2009) Species: a history of the idea. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentState University of New York at AlbanyAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations