https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/science/colossal-woolly-mammoth-DNA.html
Zimmer, Carl. “A New Company with a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/science/colossal-woolly-mammoth-DNA.html.
In the article “A New Company With a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth” the author explains how with $15 million of private funding, a new company, (Colossal), wants to achieve a big goal: bringing thousands of woolly mammoths back to Siberia. Author Carl Zimmer explains how t Colossal will support research in Dr. Church’s labs(a biologist at Harvard Medical School.) They are attempting to add genes for mammoth traits, into elephant DNA, like dense hair, and the thick fat required to survive in a cold environment. The team at Dr. Church’s labs narrowed down on 60 genes, by analysing woolly mammoth genomes, such as their high-domed skull. They are planning on making an elephant embryo with its genome modified, by removing DNA from an elephant egg and replacing it with mammoth-like DNA, hopefully producing a mammoth-like creature. Many scientists are very doubtful that this is possible, and raise questions on the ethics of this experiment. Is producing an animal we know so little about, humane? These scientists believe that as of now, bringing back a mammal that went extinct thousands of years ago is too ambitious.
I chose this article because of how interesting and impossible this idea seemed to me. When diving deeper into this topic, I was very fascinated to learn how this would impact our world. Bringing mammoths back could potentially help the environment. The tundras of Siberia are quickly warming and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and in the time of the woolly mammoths, these tundras were mostly grassland, but now, they are dominated by moss. Some scientists speculate that woolly mammoths were ecosystem engineers, breaking up moss resulting in maintaining the grassland, knocking down trees, and providing fertilizer. In addition, new forms of genetic engineering and reproductive technology could come out of this experiment. For example, scientists could help save species under threat of disease by providing it with genes for resistance to a pathogen, or species could be given genes to better tolerate drought and heat from climate change. With climate change and habitat degradation, this could have a big impact!
Overall, the article is very well written. The author uses concise vocabulary and writes with a nice flow, making it easy to understand. I especially liked how the author used quotes from multiple different perspectives, making the writing not slanted one way or the other. I am very interested to see if there will be an update on this experiment!
Kiran Madhavan
ReplyDeleteSophia reviewed an article called, “A New Company With a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth” written by Carl Zimmer, which explains how scientists hope to bring back woolly mammoths through the use of elephant DNA. The first aspect of this review that I found interesting was how Sophia started by explaining exactly how these mammoth genes would be implanted into the DNA of elephants and the research done to decide what mammoth genes would be used. Sophia states that the research team conducting this experiment are “... planning on making an elephant embryo with its genome modified, by removing DNA from an elephant egg and replacing it with mammoth-like DNA, hopefully producing a mammoth-like creature” (Ikiri). This explains what the scientists are trying to do using the woolly mammoth's genomes in a simple manner so that it is easily understood by the reader. Another aspect of this review that I liked was how at the end of her first paragraph, Sophia explained how many scientists are debating the morality of bringing back an extinct animal such as the woolly mammoth. Sophia says, “These scientists believe that as of now, bringing back a mammal that went extinct thousands of years ago is too ambitious” (Ikiri). This informs readers that woolly mammoths might not be brought back to life, and makes them question whether they themselves think this is an ethical thing to do. The third aspect I liked about this review was how Sophia then explained how bringing woolly mammoths could help the environment. Prior to this paragraphs, readers may have questioned why scientists were even thinking of doing this in the first place. Sophia discusses how Siberia’s once grassy tundras are now covered by moss, and how woolly mammoths could help. She says, “Some scientists speculate that woolly mammoths were ecosystem engineers, breaking up moss resulting in maintaining the grassland, knocking down trees, and providing fertilizer” (Ikiri). This explains the benefits of bringing back these creatures to the reader.
While this review was very well written, I think something that could be improved was if Sophia maybe gave her opinions on whether she thinks bringing woolly mammoths is ethical or not after saying, “Many scientists are very doubtful that this is possible, and raise questions on the ethics of this experiment. Is producing an animal we know so little about, humane?” (Ikiri). Although not necessary, I think hearing her personal thoughts on this could be useful for the reader to hear. She could also have provided some direct quotes from the article itself to help the reader learn more about the research team and the work they have done.
I definitely enjoyed reading this review, and learning more about the possibilities improvements in genetic engineering could bring. I chose to read this review because I was intrigued by the title, and the possibility of bringing back extinct animals through genetic engineering. I liked how Sophia also included how scientists could help other species survive in today's changing climate. I think this review has helped me learn more about genetic engineering and strengthened my understanding of the topic.
Citations:
Zimmer, Carl. “A New Company with a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2021,
www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/science/colossal-woolly-mammoth-DNA.html.
https://bhscorechem.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-new-company-with-wild-mission-bring.html#comment-form
Sophia Ikiri reviewed the article,“A New Company With a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth” written by Carl Zimmer. Sophia did a great job reviewing this article she highlighted the importance of bringing back the extinct animal and what it would bring to the ecosystem surrounding it. She also clarified the genetic mutation that they are creating which sounds confusing however, she did a great job simplifying the complication. The third aspect of Sophia's that I enjoyed was the way she asked questions, she asked questions to the reader keeping us engaged and attentive to the subject she was talking about.
ReplyDeleteThis review was very well written however, there are some tweaks that I would make. When she asked a question at the end of the first paragraph she never truly answered it and kind of just changes topics directly after this question kind of forgetting it. One way that Sophia could have displayed her evidence better was through the use of quotes, she never actually quoted the author of the article, which made her lack on evidence, a little bit.
Overall, I really liked the presented this whole article, I was truly quite fascinated on how scientists are this advanced. Trying to recreate animals that went extinct thousands of years ago and by just combining DNA they can create these ginormous animals that we still haven't seen in person. This article changed my view on genetic mutation and how it is a really cool thing and while it was very informative I enjoyed reading review a lot.
Citations:
Zimmer, Carl. “A New Company with a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2021,
www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/science/colossal-woolly-mammoth-DNA.html.
https://bhscorechem.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-new-company-with-wild-mission-bring.html#comment-for
Isadora Schmidt (Here's the second half of my comment.)
ReplyDeleteThere were so many things I didn’t know before that I learned in reading Sophia’s review, I didn’t even know scientists had the ability to make an animal that became extinct possibly return and live in the way Earth had turned into. But personally, I think the fact that was most impressive to me was when Sophia said, “They are planning on making an elephant embryo with its genome modified, by removing DNA from an elephant egg and replacing it with mammoth-like DNA, hopefully producing a mammoth-like creature.” (Ikiri). When I first read this part of Sophia’s review I was utterly shocked and had to read it again multiple times to really understand what these scientists are doing. I cannot believe they have the power and ability to make DNA for an animal that existed when us humans didn’t by just using other animals that are very closely related to wooly mammoths even though they still aren’t the same animal. It seems kind of crazy to me that scientists can do this and makes me wonder if they can do it for any other extinct animal if they work really hard. Could they somehow also create DNA for an animal like a Do-Do Bird??? At first when I picked this review to read it was because the title seemed very interesting and it brought up a lot more questions then some other review titles did but now after reading and analyzing it I'm very glad I read this because I learned and now understand so much about genetic modifications and how DNA can be mixed together to create another animal.
Citations:
Zimmer, Carl. “A New Company With a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Wooly Mammoth.” The New York Times, The New York Times, September 13, 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/science/colossal-woolly-mammoth-DNA.html
https://bhscorechem.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-new-company-with-wild-mission-bring.html
I read Sophia Ikiri's current event on the article, "A New Company with a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth.” by Carl Zimmer. Sophia's current event was very well written. For example, her current event was organized perfectly. her introduction was about what the article she read was about and what is trying to be achieved. Next her body paragraph was connected more personally and what this article means to her and why she chose to write about it and finally her conclusion was an honest review on the article, and what the author did well when writing. Also Sophia was able to connect with the readers by asking questions. For me this intrigued be more into the topic and made me ask more questions about the article. Another thing she was able to successfully do with her current event is she was very straight to the point. Not one sentence in this current event was irrelevant or wasted on something unimportant to the topic. Even though Sophia wrote a very good current event there were a few thing I would suggest doing to make it even stronger. For example, I feel like she could have gone deeper with talked the opposite of why scientist are exited into potentially bringing mammoths back and why maybe what will this do and how maybe our environment isn't capable to keep mammoths alive due to global warming. One thing that really surprised me with this article is that I never knew that mammoths were economic engineers. I didn't know they, "breaking up moss resulting in maintaining the grassland, knocking down trees, and providing fertilizer."
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited: Zimmer, Carl. “A New Company with a Wild Mission: Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Sept. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/science/colossal-woolly-mammoth-DNA.html.