Science Scientists create embryos, hope to save near-extinct rhino

https://www.afp.com/en/news/205/scientists-create-embryos-hope-save-near-extinct-rhino-doc-1759ps2

Scientists create embryos, hope to save near-extinct rhinoMonths after the death of Sudan, the world's last male northern white rhino, scientists said Wednesday they have grown embryos containing DNA of his kind, hoping to save the subspecies from extinction.

With only two northern white rhino (NWR) known to be alive today -- both infertile females -- the team hopes their breakthrough technique will lead to the re-establishment of a viable NWR breeding population.

"Our goal is to have in three years the first NWR calf born," Thomas Hildebrandt, head of reproduction management at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Berlin, told journalists of the work.

"Taking into account 16 months (of) pregnancy, we have a little more than a year to have a successful implantation."

The team's work, using a recently-patented, two-metre (6.6-foot) egg extraction device, resulted in the first-ever test tube-produced rhino embryos.

Now frozen, these "have a very high chance to establish a pregnancy once implanted into a surrogate mother," said Hildebrandt.

The hybrid embryos were created with frozen sperm from dead NWR males and the eggs of southern white rhino (SWR) females, of which there are thousands left on Earth.

The eggs were harvested from rhinos in European zoos.

The team now hopes to use the technique to collect eggs from the last two northern white rhinos -- Najin and Fatu, the daughter and granddaughter of Sudan. They live in a Kenyan national park.

- Risk and reward -

By fertilising these with northern white rhino sperm and implanting the resulting embryos in surrogate southern white rhino females, the team intends to create a new, fledgling NWR population.

"Our results indicate that ART (assisted reproduction techniques) could be a viable strategy to rescue genes from the iconic, almost extinct, northern white rhinoceros," the team wrote in the journal Nature Communications.

The researchers have sought permission to harvest eggs from Najin and Fatu in Kenya, hopefully before the end of the year.

But the procedure is not without risk: "we have to do a full anaesthesia, the animal is down for two hours, and it is quite a risky situation" for the last two of their kind, conceded Hildebrandt.

"We are highly afraid something unexpected would happen, that would be a nightmare."

In the meantime, the team will practice, implanting some of their hybrid embryos into SWR surrogates "to test the system".

Any hybrids born as a result may play a crucial future role as surrogates, sharing more genes with northern rhinos than purely southern surrogates.

There is, however, a key obstacle to the team's envisaged NWR repopulation.

With only two NWR females left and all the available semen from only four dead males, ART alone would likely lead to a population without the genetic diversity required for a species to thrive.

- Can it work? -

To this end, the researchers hope to use stem cell technology to engineer eggs and sperm from the frozen skin cells of 12 dead northern white rhinos, unrelated to one another.

"This would enlarge the founding diversity of the future NWR population substantially," the team said in a statement.

There is time pressure, they pointed out, with only two animals still around to socialise the babies in the mysterious ways of northern white rhinos.

"It is a motivating aspect to succeed as soon a possible so the calf that we produce can grow up with Najin and Fatu," said Hildebrandt.

Terri Roth and William Swanson of the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, in a comment on the study, said ART alone cannot save a species from extinction.

"Impressive results in a Petri dish don't easily translate into a herd of healthy offspring," wrote the duo, not involved in the research.

"Achieving the latter requires navigating an untrodden path fraught with obstacles, and it remains unlikely that a viable population of northern white rhinos will be restored."

For the researchers, however, a combination of ART and stem cell techniques, could "provide a blueprint on how to save highly endangered species that have already dwindled to numbers that make conventional conservation efforts impossible."

TL;DR- There are only 2 northern white rhino females and semen is only available from 4 dead males. As the scientists state, that will likely lead to a population that will not meet the genetic diversity needed for a species to thrive solely through the artificial reproduction. To address this problem they are hoping to use stem cells to engineer eggs and sperm cells from 12 dead rhinos.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this yet (on one hand, this is a great cause, but on the other hand I kind of feel like we're moving into "playing God" territory) but I would really love to see species that were endangered due to human interference brought back from the brink. The Northern White Rhino is nearly extinct because poachers won't stop murdering them so they can sell their horns to people (usually Asians, let's be honest) who have too much money.
 
Meanwhile the AR people are reeeing about this and other ways to conserve and preserve engendered species.
 
I don't really understand the obsession with saving endangered species. The implication that northern white rhinos are so important that we have to go to any lengths possible to protect them, no matter how much it costs, no matter how many people could be helped with that time and money instead, but we can slaughter cows in the millions and who cares, doesn't make much sense. The idea that an animal's importance is inversely proportional to how many there are in the world is silly.
I understand your feeling but you never know when a species might have useful traits for the biotech industry. I want their genome and transcriptome around, and the only sure way to get what you might need is for the organism to exist.

Biodiversity is also incredibly important. Every species, no matter how small, have an important role to play. Every ecosystem is an incredibly complex web full of species that depend on each other and fill important roles. If too many of these species (or even just one really important species, which is known as a keystone species) is taken out, the entire ecosystem can be thrown out of whack and everything can be ruined.
Eh, the sensitivity of the environment is often overplayed by well meaning people trying to make a point. If it were that easy, life on Earth would have ended ages ago. Instead it's persisted unbroken more or less from the very instant it was even theoretically possible for their to be life. Cyanobacteria have killed far more species than humans ever could, but the Earth survived 20% of its atmosphere being converted into a highly reactive oxidizing poison.

Besides, if the white rhino were a keystone species, its environment would already have completely collapsed. There's so few individuals it's effectively removed from the ecosystem as a major force already. I'm very skeptical any one species has ever been so important.
 
Earth is currently experiencing a major extinction event mostly caused by us. It's too late to undo some mistakes. But I feel like it's worth trying to save what we can.

I don't really understand the obsession with saving endangered species. The implication that northern white rhinos are so important that we have to go to any lengths possible to protect them, no matter how much it costs, no matter how many people could be helped with that time and money instead, but we can slaughter cows in the millions and who cares, doesn't make much sense. The idea that an animal's importance is inversely proportional to how many there are in the world is silly.

Why do we only have to care about one thing at a time? Wildlife conservation can draw tourists to impoverished countries who desperately need the money. It provides jobs and educational opportunities. It gives people something to be proud of.

Have you read about what's been happening to rhinos? They remove the horn at the root and leave the animal there to die. If a female has a calf it's orphaned and wanders around until it's eaten by a hyena or lion. Many calves have been rescued and are so traumatized by seeing their mother killed that they have serious stress issues.

You can't just let people go around killing whatever animals they want to feed the dick hardening placebo industry in China. Because that's where a lot of this stuff is going. Rhino horns, tiger bones, donkey skins ect...

We shouldn't be breaking the ecosystem any more than we already are. One species dying off can cause a chain reaction that can affect everything in the area eventually.
 
Why do we only have to care about one thing at a time? Wildlife conservation can draw tourists to impoverished countries who desperately need the money. It provides jobs and educational opportunities. It gives people something to be proud of.

Seriously, eco-tourism is huge. Things like whale-watching, nature preserves, and scuba diving by coral reefs bring in a lot of money. People want to experience the natural beauty of Earth and they’ll pay to do it. So conservation is often mutually beneficial for both people and the environment.

There’s no legitimate argument against environmentalism. Earth is our planet too, the only home we have. If we keep fucking it up it will come back to bite us. It already is.
 
Biodiversity is also incredibly important. Every species, no matter how small, have an important role to play. Every ecosystem is an incredibly complex web full of species that depend on each other and fill important roles. If too many of these species (or even just one really important species, which is known as a keystone species) is taken out, the entire ecosystem can be thrown out of whack and everything can be ruined. By protecting endangered species, many of which fill important niches in nature, we're protecting the balance of nature itself.
We shouldn't be breaking the ecosystem any more than we already are. One species dying off can cause a chain reaction that can affect everything in the area eventually.
The ecosystem is not as fragile as people claim it is. There is no chain reaction for pretty much any ecosystem that is adjacent to another, healthy ecosystem.

The evolutionary process puts constant pressure on life to continue. Anytime something goes extinct, something fills the gap. Look at abandoned human settlements. How long does it take before nature reclaims it?

Hell, nature is reclaiming Chris' house, 14BC, and he's not even gone yet.

Counter examples of nature's resilience are situations like Australia or the Galapagos islands, where you've got this tiny little choke point of an environment. That is not typical.

Any large landmass, connected to other large landmasses, will continue to thrive and evolve regardless of what humans do.

It's better to see human activity as a levee, holding back nature, which threatens to flood over human settlements. And the levees are constantly springing leaks. Anyone live in a big city? Because you'll soon realize they're full of rats.

Rats are a great counter-example to environmentalist narrative, because they highlight just how innovative nature is. Do you know why tropical islands all have rats? Because rats are fucking disgusting little survivors. They travel to new places by boarding ships. You can't keep them out. They can flatten their ribcages and squeeze into little holes. Once they're on the ship, they can disembark when they get near an island. Not near a dock? Doesn't matter, they can swim for three fucking miles.

Humanity has been working its ass off to kill rats (because of diseases) for pretty much all of civilization.

Our best weapon has only been another animal, cats. God bless cats.
There’s no legitimate argument against environmentalism. Earth is our planet too, the only home we have. If we keep fucking it up it will come back to bite us. It already is.
That's like saying there's no argument against feminism.

Like sure, I can accept that. But then the question becomes: what flavor of feminism?

Sometimes environmentalists are right about practical issues. I'm with them on those issues. Like my state, Maryland, is bisected by a giant bay that's full of delicious seafood. So we've got to prevent them from being overfished. And we need to keep the chicken shit from the eastern shore from causing algae blooms. Fair enough, I'm totally on board with that.

And I'm on board for preserving species for scientific reasons. And even for sentimental / entertainment reasons, as with zoos or attempts to preserve native species because they're pretty.

But I find mainstream environmentalism to be way too full of theatrics for my tastes.

I find myself constantly having to sift through bad arguments to get to the kernel of truth.
 
Contrary to what others in this thread have said competition between species for the same resources has led to numerous extinctions before the existence of modern humans. Most extinctions aren't spectacular. The vast majority of extinct animals ceased to exist because another animal came along and did a better job of filling their niche. Humans are doing just this on a massive scale. Where we don't fill niches we replace them with new ones, which is something unique to humans. There may even come a point where technology is so advanced we can maintain all of Earth's ecosystems through bio-engineering and robotics, no "nature" required.

Saving severely endangered or extinct animals is mostly a vanity thing. Some are extremely important to the ecosystem and absolutely worth saving, while others like white rhinos are saved because of human guilt. We also save some animals just because we enjoy them. We find them beautiful, entertaining, or fascinating. It's not necessarily a bad thing but it is questionable.

All that said I'm very much on the side of the bleeding hearts here. One day I hope we can even clone dinosaurs. I just don't believe my position is entirely morally correct or beyond criticism.
 
Something to remember with the whole "unprecedented mass extinction" thing...by its very nature the fossil record misses the vast bulk of organisms that die and has shitty temporal resolution. Not only did a given organism likely exist long before its oldest known fossil was created, and exist long after its most recent known fossil; the vast majority of organisms never left any identifiable trace.

More species are recorded going extinct today than at any other time in Earth's history because we're alive right now, and therefore know of many more species than existed at any other time period. By orders of magnitude. Even then, we're missing most of them. Most species are only known by traces of RNA and genetic material taken from soil or sea water. They've never been characterized.

It's a big, big planet.

Saving severely endangered or extinct animals is mostly a vanity thing. Some are extremely important to the ecosystem and absolutely worth saving, while others like white rhinos are saved because of human guilt.
I'm all for human vanity though. We're a really awesome species. Stop with the self loathing, guys. We can damn or preserve whole forms of life at a whim. That's pretty incredible. If people find value in reviving them, or keeping them around, why not?
 
Back