Wooly mammoth. I watched a great show about a S. Korean company working on a specimen from Siberia. They were able to extract liquid blood, didn't know if it was usable yet.

I think it was on National Geographic.
My opinion, these scientists haven't watched Jurassic Park. They're spending so much time wondering if they could, I don't think they've stopped to ask if they should.

Extinct species went extinct for a reason. Probably best to leave them extinct. The environment and ecosystems have moved on without them.

"Extinct species went extinct for a reason. Probably best to leave them extinct. The environment and ecosystems have moved on without them. "

This is not true. People are the reason many things went extinct. We have reintroduction of wolves and other species in locals that help manage populations. Heck, deer almost went extinct in many places and they could have if we wanted to. Same with Turkeys. Now there are species that respond differently to human intervention and there are many balance problems especially if you involve invasive species.

They should be more concerned about saving the species that are going extinct from human intervention. Hunting (Not recreational Joe out to bag a buck.) has taken its toll on many species. Humans tearing up natural territories (Rain forests) and building shopping centers.

We can't even stop a poacher from killing rhinos, who are we to be screwing with natural selection?

Wooly mammoth. I watched a great show about a S. Korean company working on a specimen from Siberia. They were able to extract liquid blood, didn't know if it was usable yet.

I think it was on National Geographic.
My opinion, these scientists haven't watched Jurassic Park. They're spending so much time wondering if they could, I don't think they've stopped to ask if they should.

Extinct species went extinct for a reason. Probably best to leave them extinct. The environment and ecosystems have moved on without them.

What say you? Assuming most of us here have another 40 or 50 years before going into the great unknown, do you think we'll see the resurrection of an extinct species?

Seems like genetic sciences are advancing at a good clip. This post inspired from reports a Tasmanian Tiger's genome has been recovered.

I'm going with yes, it will happen. But they got to get going, as I would think it will take a decade or two to work out all the kinks.

And it's like you said, maybe we'll be able to, but should we?

Who will fund this type of research?

Maybe we could save the honey bee, instead.

I don't think we'll have to wait 40 years. Given the recent advances in genetic technologies it will happen much sooner.

What was inordinately expensive cutting-edge science a decade ago is now affordable and commonplace. And the rate of progress in technical expertise and knowledge in this field is exponential.

Resurrecting the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) from extinction has been cause du jour for over a decade since the discovery a joey preserved in alcohol, as opposed to formalin which is particularly detrimental to DNA.

In many ways the project was initially a waste of time and money. A pickled thylacine isn't going to get any sicker and nor is it going to run away. In the subsequent decade, genetic techniques have become more refined and affordable. There is now increasing technological and financial viability in pursuing this research.

There are certain aspects of marsupial reproduction that make them more suitable for this kind of project. A short pregnancy for the surrogate, (21 days for a Tasmanian Devil, which would be the surrogate species used for the thylacine), limits the window for problems to occur in utero.

With new born joeys being peanut-size or smaller for all marsupials, transplanting embryos from significantly larger species to a smaller surrogate species presents fewer potential birthing difficulties in comparison to other mammals.

Both hand-raising and inter-species fostering of pouch young are established techniques in marsupial breeding, so there are options for successfully raising young to independence.

Although the thylacine population had suffered a loss of genetic diversity for millennia and was also effected by a distemper-like virus around the turn of the century, it was human persecution that drove the species to extinction with the last known individual dying in 1936.

With large areas of suitable habitat still in tact in Tasmania and no natural predators, it is an ideal candidate for reintroduction to the wild.

My crystal ball says we'll see a living thylacine within a decade.

...I just bought a big forest that I am going to manage more or less as a nature preserve...

It is not a zero sum game. Why not do both?

Humans are probably more dependent on bees than we are for any other species on the planet, but that doesn't mean that they represent the only conservation issue to address. Just because we fund research into breast cancer, isn't a reason to eliminate all other oncology funding and research.

I think a charismatic project such as bringing a species back from extinction has the potential to attract private sector funding beyond the more traditional government funding of universities, museums and other institutions where this research would take place.