0:00

This BBC podcast is supported

0:02

by ads outside the UK. the

0:04

UK. The most wonderful time Ah,

0:08

most wonderful time of the year,

0:10

although let's be honest around the holidays

0:12

things really add up But here's

0:14

the good news Only at Verizon you can

0:16

get a a single line for $50

0:18

per month when you switch and

0:20

bring your phone So So while skating for

0:22

is definitely costing more here at Verizon

0:24

You can save gifts for your

0:26

third cousins? Steep. single line with Verizon not

0:28

Not steep a A real tree? Pricey. a single

0:30

line with Verizon less pricey flights

0:32

to see Mima and Pops? are are up. a $50

0:34

per month single line That's down. Even

0:36

a trip to the San Francisco

0:39

holiday market will cost you more. But

0:41

with Verizon, you can switch and bring

0:43

your phone for just $50 per

0:45

month for a single line on unlimited welcome

0:47

with auto-paid taxes and fees. All this

0:49

to say, during the holiday season, when

0:51

everything is costing more, you can

0:53

get more for less right now at

0:55

a local Verizon store. $15 monthly promo

0:57

credits over 36 months with a new

0:59

line on Welcome. In times of congestion,

1:01

unlimited 5G, 4G, LTE may be temporarily slower

1:04

than other traffic. Domestic data roaming at 2G speeds.

1:06

Additional turns apply. of congestion, unlimited

1:08

5G-4G-G-L-T-E may be temporarily

1:10

slower than other traffic.

1:12

Domestic I'm Brian Cox. at 2G And

1:15

this is the Infinite Monkey Cage.

1:17

Now, look out of your window window

1:19

if sat at home listening to this.

1:21

And what can you see? Perhaps

1:23

a you know what Maybe you can

1:25

see an a fox near your you a

1:27

see an or if you're lucky, near your

1:29

But imagine if you're lucky too. saw

1:31

a instead you saw a roaming that

1:33

was eating your your cats. Well,

1:35

that's the kind of world

1:37

that the the are trying

1:40

to create. to create. Why are

1:42

you adopting that tone? Well,

1:44

I was told to

1:46

adopt that tone that we're

1:48

not getting enough of the

1:50

Jeremy we're not audience. enough of the

1:52

Jeremy Vine was the kind

1:54

of thing that would draw

1:56

them in, was boffins. of thing

1:58

that would wonder in. Boffins. on about. But

2:00

today we're looking at the subjects

2:03

of de-extinction, bringing extinct creatures back

2:05

into the biosphere. Basically Jurassic Park,

2:07

and we know how that ended,

2:10

with a sequel. Now, is it

2:12

possible to bring species like the

2:14

willy mammoth or the dodo back

2:16

from the dead? If so, how

2:19

would we do it? And even

2:21

if we have the technology, should

2:23

we do it? So today we're

2:26

joined by a paleontologist, a biologist,

2:28

a biologist, and a comedian who

2:30

has degrees in pathology, virology and

2:33

forensic science, which is the best

2:35

kind of episode of Colombo, because

2:37

you would definitely get away with

2:39

it. And they are. Hi, I'm

2:42

Susie Maidman, I'm a paleontologist at

2:44

the Natural History Museum, and the

2:46

animal I would not bring back

2:49

is the giant carboniferous arthropod, arthropolura.

2:51

There will be further questions shortly.

2:53

I'm Adam Rutherford, and I'm a

2:55

geneticist and broadcaster. You may be

2:58

aware of my work on radio

3:00

for programs like Star of the

3:02

Week. Nope. A bit early for

3:05

me. The organism I would not

3:07

like to see, but the first

3:09

choice I was going to say

3:11

the mammoth, and we'll probably talk

3:14

about that, so I'm not going

3:16

to say that, I'm going to

3:18

say Hitler. I mean he's extinct.

3:21

Is he technically a species? Because

3:23

I'm beginning to think that might

3:25

be why one of your books

3:27

didn't have the sales you were

3:30

expecting. Oh, this is our panel!

3:32

Excuse me, we have to ask

3:34

you just for, can you tell

3:37

us the name of that beast

3:39

again? Yeah, it's Arthur Plura and

3:41

it was a two meter long,

3:43

50 centimeter wide millipede. Now, I

3:46

don't really like things with more

3:48

than four legs, so a giant

3:50

two meter long millipede. I don't

3:53

know, no. That is

3:55

beautiful though, though, isn't

3:57

it? it? it? what

3:59

size size do

4:02

you prefer? do you prefer? I

4:04

prefer no millipedes. Really, your anti -millipedes? I'm anti

4:06

Yeah, all together. Well, all together. with Well,

4:08

I know I'm fire with snakes.

4:10

Don't mind snakes, it's the legs. like

4:12

the legs. That's a the thing, isn't it?

4:14

A fear of legs. legs? Is it?

4:16

it actually? Like evolutionally we're designed to not

4:19

like spiders and things that can move

4:21

like that. It's It's also, I I know

4:23

we're not meant to be doing doing among on legs,

4:25

do you think it's also the it's of legs?

4:27

Because we did do a show all about

4:29

spiders do a got all scared because there were some

4:31

live spiders and it was brilliant. because there the

4:33

smallness of the legs. was a spider had the leg. Like

4:35

legs had and little shoes,

4:37

little it might be better. better.

4:40

That's an interesting idea, I'm just trying to think,

4:42

would I be more scared of an elephant

4:44

if it had six legs? of an Because what

4:46

you're saying is, is if there's sturdy legs

4:48

that they're not as scary. saying is is if would

4:50

probably kill me faster than a spider with

4:52

shoes on. scary. Yeah. But it would probably up

4:54

to the wrong recording, a spider with shoes on. do

4:56

agree with that though, you're right, is

4:59

it? at least, how many legs does

5:01

this huge millipede thing have? Because

5:03

now these... How many legs does

5:05

this huge millipede thing have that...?

5:07

Loads. So many... Scared of that

5:09

particularly Would you do they have elephant do

5:11

they have do they have millipotent? Elephant you paying

5:13

attention attention, Adam? You have turned up to the up to

5:16

the wrong show if you're not

5:18

going to listen some of these very

5:20

important philosophical points. And also if

5:22

the elephant The be like a the long

5:24

to have that many legs. long to have

5:26

that many legs. Yeah. Well, yes, it would be terrifying. That's a

5:28

terrible animal, But I I think part

5:30

of the thing that makes makes scary

5:32

is because of their leg leg

5:34

They can move in all directions

5:36

elephants pretty much much in all forward. You

5:38

can't, can't, he nearly fell over

5:40

when he he came off. There could be a spherical

5:42

It could be a spherical elephant. With

5:44

legs all around. Yeah, elephant. it's, With

5:46

legs all trunk? You haven't thought this trunk? all. No,

5:48

as you know, theoretical thought this through oh all!

5:50

No, as you know, and all physicist,

5:52

all cows are spherical. and and all

5:54

people are spherical as well, and that's

5:56

why be should be kept well away

5:58

from real science like... I have come to

6:01

the wrong recording. Why not I ask

6:03

a question that's related to the subject?

6:05

It is hard though, isn't it? Because

6:08

I think people are listening at home,

6:10

we'll be going, I would like to

6:12

know more about the girth of a

6:15

leg, the fear of a leg, the

6:17

number, what's the perfect number of legs

6:19

for an elephant? Four. Four. Four. Is

6:22

that perfect? Well, actually, to be perfectly

6:24

honest, male elephants also use their penis

6:26

as a leg in certain situations so

6:29

they can prop themselves up. So maybe

6:31

the perfect number of elephant legs is

6:33

actually five. Can I ask a question?

6:35

And this actually is going to be

6:38

relevant for later in the discussion about

6:40

mammoth in IVF. I guarantee this. I

6:42

can't wait for the mammoth penis conversation.

6:45

I'll be honest. I'm excited now. Weirdly,

6:47

I had this conversation on a live

6:49

radio in Ireland one time and the

6:52

person arguing against me was a priest.

6:54

What conversation about the why the elephant

6:56

penis is prehensile? There's a specific reason

6:59

for it which is relevant to the

7:01

topic for them. That's creepy. Can I

7:03

just say that is creepy, a prehensile

7:06

penis? Like don't come near... If your

7:08

penis is prehensile, do not come near

7:10

me. I mean, I

7:12

didn't choose the seating plan. Before we

7:15

get to the extension, talk about extinction.

7:17

So what role has extinction played in

7:19

the evolution of life on Earth? It

7:22

is the defining feature of evolution of

7:24

life on Earth. We estimate that something

7:26

like 95 to 97% of all species

7:28

that have ever existed are already extinct.

7:31

There have been... five major extinction events

7:33

in the history of life on earth.

7:35

We're probably in the sixth, and this

7:38

is the one that's happening at the

7:40

greatest speed. So that's the one that

7:42

you should be most concerned with. Susie's

7:44

a better person to talk about the

7:47

individual extensions, but the one that killed

7:49

all the dinosaurs, the asteroid that landed

7:51

just off the coast of what is

7:54

now Mexico, and wiped out. dinosaur

7:56

66 million years

7:58

ago, that was the

8:00

third biggest. And the two

8:03

the two that came

8:05

before it, were much worse.

8:07

The end much worse. and the

8:10

and the and the and the endpermian

8:12

probably 95% of of life on earth

8:14

went extinct. And actually

8:16

those extinctions are very useful and very

8:19

informative because we can look back at

8:21

them can look look back at what look and

8:23

the effects and how quickly ecosystems and how

8:25

try to understand a little bit more

8:27

about what's going on today. about what's going

8:29

think that's why I think has never been

8:31

more important than it is today, folks. important

8:33

than it is when it was So peak at

8:36

the end before the what would the would the

8:38

have looked like? like? And then when it was

8:40

at its lowest, when you're talking about just

8:42

just 5% left, then then what do we

8:44

see? the kind of image? Yeah, so was a time before

8:46

was a time before the dinosaurs evolved.

8:48

So reptiles, of things like mammal -like

8:50

reptiles. yet, hadn't were evolved yet, but there

8:52

were lots of kind of you Things

8:54

that if you looked at, you'd

8:56

probably think were dinosaurs, but were more

8:58

closely related to us than they were

9:00

to the dinosaurs. to the So big So

9:02

big... big reptiles and very diverse. After

9:04

the mass extinction, as I

9:07

I said, about 95 % of

9:09

life went extinct, potentially up

9:11

to 95 % of life. of And

9:13

what we see we see things

9:15

called disaster fauners. are very, very very animals, but

9:17

very, very low biodiversity. we don't have don't have

9:19

loads of animals, but the ones that we

9:21

do have seem to have been incredibly

9:23

successful. So they seem to have been able

9:25

to thrive in this kind of post this

9:27

kind of of world. So I guess they're

9:29

the kind of things I you know, people

9:32

always say, oh, the of will still be

9:34

there after nuclear war. I just pictured this

9:36

sort of nuclear wasteland with just a

9:38

couple of men and this sort of nuclear wasteland

9:40

with of the final

9:42

bit of in the parts. Basically, without

9:45

How much progress is it

9:47

possible is a living planet like

9:49

ours, and you've said 95

9:51

% to 97 % of all

9:54

living things have gone extinct,

9:56

have gone extinct. a requirement to

9:58

get to the stage of? the multi-legged

10:00

elephants and ourselves. The pattern of

10:02

life on earth requires extinction to

10:04

have happened in order for the

10:06

next thing to have happened as

10:08

it already played out. So it's

10:10

a sort of, it's a funny

10:12

sort of question, yes, things are

10:14

the way they are because extinction

10:16

has happened. But there's no sense

10:18

of direction within that. The mammals

10:20

wouldn't have evolved in the same

10:22

way that they have done and

10:24

ended up with us and monkeys

10:26

and rats and other mammals that

10:29

I can't think of right now.

10:31

Bats, cats, yeah. To me to

10:33

just name them. Right, is that

10:35

five thousand authors? Yeah, a thousand

10:37

bats. What was I talking about?

10:39

I don't know. Susie! It's a

10:41

good idea to move to Susie.

10:43

Yeah. So the subject of this

10:45

program is deextinction. So in terms,

10:47

it sounds like science fiction. I

10:49

suppose everybody thinks of... Jurassic Park,

10:51

scientifically speaking, as we are now,

10:53

is easy the possibility that we

10:55

can bring species back that were

10:57

extinct? Well, there's different ways that

10:59

people have tried to do it,

11:01

and some of those result, or

11:03

the ones that are sort of

11:05

successful, don't really bring back an

11:07

extinct thing. They bring back something

11:09

similar to the thing that was

11:11

extinct, but it's not genetically the

11:13

same. So there's sort of three

11:15

different ways that people have thought

11:17

about this. The first one is

11:19

back breeding and people have been

11:21

doing this. you know, selectively breeding

11:23

traits for millennia, right? You know,

11:25

it's how we domesticated everything. And

11:28

so you can backbreed. The idea

11:30

is that you take something that's

11:32

quite similar to the animal that

11:34

you're interested in and you kind

11:36

of backbreed to try to produce

11:38

something that is basically the same.

11:40

So an example of this is

11:42

the aurochs, which was a kind

11:44

of the thing that cattle were

11:46

domesticated from and is now extinct.

11:48

It was part of the Pleistocene

11:50

mega fauna. It was one of

11:52

the big animals. and they are

11:54

no longer in the wild, they're

11:56

extinct. in the

11:58

world. wild, took cows,

12:00

cows, their genetic

12:02

lineage continues in. in

12:04

living cows. So they took cows So

12:07

they took cows and tried

12:09

to selectively breed the

12:11

features had, so big curly horns and I don't

12:13

know, shaggy coats and stuff like that. out

12:15

the things that we the things them.

12:17

we wasn't just people who did

12:19

that It it was the Nazis.

12:21

who did that though, it was the Nazis.

12:23

Oh really? Yeah, the Nazis bring back.

12:25

Why did they have that? Right, they did all sorts. to

12:27

bring back. Why did they have that? You seem

12:30

be obsessed Adam. Adam. So in

12:32

terms of that terms of that

12:34

back possible it be possible

12:36

if you had two

12:38

people who in terms of to

12:40

have in terms of who

12:42

who had a reasonably high

12:44

percentage of Neanderthal gene

12:46

for instance could we start

12:48

working towards creating Neanderthal

12:51

human being how long would

12:53

it take How long would we?

12:55

and should we? Robin, I'm afraid I'm afraid

12:57

I've dated a few. now. They

12:59

were amongst us all the time. They were

13:01

amongst us all the time.

13:03

It never left. question in

13:05

of a reasonable question in there

13:07

somewhere, I think, from Robin, because

13:09

I suppose the question would be,

13:11

you could would be, you there still, so is

13:13

all these bits of the Neanderthal

13:15

genome that are around today, in

13:18

are around today, in there enough?

13:20

is Is there a way there

13:22

a way of going back? Not Not

13:25

really, is the simple answer.

13:27

So about about 50% of of

13:29

a total Neanderthal genome is

13:31

present in mostly European people

13:33

today in total. on average, most

13:36

white European people have around

13:38

about between 1 and 2% % Neanderthal

13:41

DNA. DNA. And if you total all

13:43

that up, you get to about

13:45

half a genome of a Neanderthal. got

13:47

We've also got, from ancient samples, full

13:49

we've got a full Neanderthal genome. So

13:51

we actually know the Neanderthal genome. genome.

13:53

Now there's a big language here is is that

13:55

when we talk about this kind of

13:57

stuff in stuff in know popular science We're

14:01

not really telling the full

14:03

truth about what it means

14:05

to have a full genome

14:07

sequence. There is a lot

14:09

of genome. In fact, the

14:11

vast majority of the human

14:13

genome is not genes. So

14:15

it's less than 3% of

14:17

the total amount of genetic

14:19

code is... is genes itself.

14:21

And those are the bits

14:23

that we focus on when

14:25

we are looking at DNA

14:27

that has been in species

14:29

that have been dead for

14:31

tens of thousands of years,

14:33

such as the Neanderthals. So

14:35

yeah, we do have most

14:37

of the genome sequence for

14:39

genes in Neanderthals, but almost

14:41

none of the rest of

14:43

it. Some of that stuff

14:45

is not that important, probably.

14:47

But we don't really know

14:50

what that stuff does in

14:52

Homo sapiens. We don't have

14:54

it for Neanderthals. So in

14:56

principle is doing a lot

14:58

of heavy lifting, but in

15:00

practice, it's, yeah, I mean,

15:02

it's just reasonably... It's reasonable

15:04

to say that it's not

15:06

a reasonable prospect. We have

15:08

picked the wrong subject for

15:10

this show, haven't we? It

15:12

seems to be a very

15:14

negative one. And they also

15:16

probably had a larger Y

15:18

chromosome, because we've learned that

15:20

the Y chromosome's been shrinking

15:22

over time. Sorry, guys. But

15:24

it's been shrinking over time.

15:26

So there's probably actually genetic

15:28

material that's been lost that

15:30

we can't recover. And it

15:32

is interesting, because it's not

15:34

long ago. So one method

15:36

as you said of essentially

15:38

bringing certain traits back. are

15:41

accentuating them is through breeding.

15:43

But then I suppose the

15:45

other technology that people most

15:47

think of is genetic engineering,

15:49

so crisper technology and so

15:51

on. So this idea that

15:53

we can, we now have

15:55

the technology to select particular

15:57

gene sequences and then insert

15:59

them. into the DNA the

16:01

DNA of living organisms. So is that,

16:03

in any sense, efficient root, or a more

16:05

efficient route, or a possible route back?

16:07

So bringing traits back? So we've

16:09

accepted we're not gonna bring the

16:11

whole species back. but certain traits. traits. giving

16:14

me a giving me a really serious stare

16:16

and he's giving me his best Darwin

16:18

stare there. Look at that. at why

16:20

I grew this beard, my friends. my friends.

16:22

Because I'm going to give the same

16:24

answer. In principle, doing a lot of heavy

16:26

lifting, lifting, yeah, but actually but actually in the future, quite

16:28

the future, quite possibly, but the fact

16:30

of the matter is that we don't

16:33

really understand how the human genome works.

16:35

But we don't understand how the simplest

16:37

traits and and diseases really work at a

16:39

genetic level. So when we start talking

16:41

about engineering them, them in and tweaking

16:43

them in order to I I don't

16:45

know, characteristics from dead animals or extinct animals or

16:48

other species, other it's just fantasy. We We

16:50

talked about this, I was just saying

16:52

we talked about this we talked about it's

16:54

easy to say, isn't it? As you

16:56

said, easy I've said in principle As

16:58

times, and I've is in practice that we

17:00

can times, but a sequence of genes

17:03

and we can insert them into and

17:05

living organisms them into a How do we

17:07

do that? How do we do Do you want me

17:09

to do it on you now? it on you now? Is that... Well, you

17:11

want to him into one of those into

17:13

one of were talking about spiders. We were had

17:15

not heard about these goats That now

17:17

you can milk them for heard about these goats that

17:19

now you can you did a horizon on

17:21

one as far as I remember I've

17:24

actually Well, they've been the spider silk out of

17:26

I a few years ago you basically what

17:28

led you to biology because you were

17:30

always high on a hill with a

17:32

lonely go I've actually milked to then milking that

17:34

goat and they said that guy's got

17:36

a future of it mean that's not how

17:39

I remember the story Always what? pop-up your

17:41

life I life I've just in my

17:43

memory a film crew there in remember a

17:45

big sort of a big a living room and

17:47

you were singing and dancing and you were singing

17:49

dancing come to the wrong children. no,

17:51

no, no, to the wrong You've come

17:53

to the end of your nightmare,

17:55

my friend, with my your end of your nightmare

17:57

my friend with your weedy white chromosome.

17:59

What if they make that the next

18:02

time I want to date with the

18:04

new end of all? What if they

18:06

make the Y-chromes, what if it is

18:08

possible to make it, or whatever, how

18:10

we wish to define it? How will

18:12

that affect the male population? Less boldness.

18:15

Deextinction. Deextinction, the subject of the record.

18:17

Look, Ryan. And he said about 15

18:19

minutes ago, it's impossible. What is the

18:21

point? He also said all biology was

18:23

rubbish, right? It's not impossible. And Susie

18:25

was going to get to the third

18:27

way we do this, which is via

18:30

cloning, right? Yes. And the reason this

18:32

is important is because one species... the

18:34

Puranine Ibex, has successfully been resurrected, but

18:36

the tragedy of this story is it

18:38

also means it's the only species that

18:40

has ever existed that went extinct twice.

18:42

So, Susie, this cloning, right, so how

18:44

is that working in terms of us

18:47

creating this deextinction? scenario. Okay, so at

18:49

the beginning of the show you asked

18:51

the geneticist about extinctions in the past

18:53

and now you're asking the paleontologist about

18:55

cloning. What we find is at least

18:57

a far more inventive answer. In that

18:59

specific instance. Okay, so the way that

19:02

cloning works, I think, is that basically

19:04

you take a somatic cell and you

19:06

put it in an egg cell from

19:08

a soraga animal. So you can take...

19:10

genetic material from one animal and you

19:12

basically put the nucleus in the the

19:14

egg cell of a surrogate animal But

19:17

again you still don't get the exact

19:19

genetic replica because they're still the organelles

19:21

of the surrogate animals DNA Mitochondria and

19:23

things like that that are there. So

19:25

I think you still get a kind

19:27

of mixture. Is that right? Yeah, I

19:29

mean, it's pretty much as close as

19:32

you can get to an actual clone

19:34

as possible And of course

19:36

everyone knows about about Dolly

19:38

the the first, the first,

19:40

wasn't actually the

19:42

first cloned, it wasn't

19:44

in fact the

19:47

first cloned sheep, in

19:49

there was an unnamed

19:51

cloned sheep from

19:53

about 15 years earlier,

19:55

but Dolly was

19:57

the most famous one

19:59

for this particular

20:02

technique and this is

20:04

the same technique

20:06

used for the this

20:08

Ibex. The animal that

20:10

we hear most

20:12

about same technique back the Pyrenenean

20:14

the species we're

20:17

bringing back is the

20:19

woolly mammoth. The

20:21

woolly mammoth is back

20:23

of iconic in a

20:25

way, isn't it?

20:27

So back, is the people see

20:29

that that was an interesting thing to

20:31

do, and do you envisage that it will

20:34

be done? be I I think Well

20:36

I is a really, really

20:38

good question really mean, question here. has

20:40

been argued, I believe, that I

20:42

you brought back the brought mammoths

20:44

actually, they were ecosystem engineers. they

20:46

were So they made what is

20:48

today kind of is today kind of

20:50

tundra and tega forest And so and so this

20:53

increases diversity, at least changes biodiversity

20:55

allows you know different sorts of

20:57

plant life and other animals To live

20:59

in those sorts of environments of the

21:01

last population of mammoths was about

21:03

4 ,000 years ago, but most of

21:06

them are about 10 ,000 years ago, but but

21:08

were you know It's not long

21:10

climate was fundamentally different then. So

21:12

these are animals that were living

21:14

in that were in the the the

21:17

last in the ice they went extinct because

21:19

of climate change. because So why? change. So why?

21:21

Well, I think think I don't really understand why you

21:23

would want to bring back something that lived

21:25

in a fundamentally different environment. and

21:27

stick it in. environment today and

21:29

then try to today

21:31

environment to produce a a time

21:33

when the climate was fundamentally different, like, how would

21:35

that work? I mean the argument is, work?

21:37

The think, isn't it, that I think, would

21:39

be able to, you would I suppose,

21:41

engineer engineer... the tundra as you say these regions these as

21:44

you say, these of the these vast regions

21:46

of the Arctic, them back to been able

21:48

to re -engineer them back to something that's

21:50

more productive, I think, is the a good

21:52

carbon sink I good carbon sink. think

21:54

it's been argued that these grasslands are very

21:56

good very good carbon sinks. Plants

21:58

draw down carbon dioxide the atmosphere

22:00

and then store it, lock it away.

22:02

And apparently the idea is that these

22:05

grasslands, these huge areas of step, would

22:07

actually kind of draw down more carbon

22:09

dioxide than the equivalent environments that are

22:12

there today, the tundra today. So the

22:14

mammoth would be if you could reintroduce

22:16

that species, the guess, and I think

22:18

Adam is looking sceptical here, but the

22:21

kind of the idea is that you

22:23

could re-engineer that whole environment into something

22:25

that was more... more useful. We've seen

22:27

it before, haven't we? We've seen, you

22:30

know, the reintroduction of beavers has been

22:32

able to change the paths of rivers

22:34

in order to redistribute water. We've seen

22:37

reintroduction of species in various places quite

22:39

successfully, but it feels far-fetched to go,

22:41

okay, what can we do with this

22:43

land? Well, first, we're going to bring

22:46

back something that hasn't been around for

22:48

four to 10,000 years. I mean, it

22:50

doesn't seem budgetable. Do you know what

22:52

I mean? Like, as a project manager,

22:55

I'd go, maybe we try something different.

22:57

See, I've already got, right, the elephant

22:59

thing, let's not bother so much with the

23:01

number of legs, right? We were talking about

23:04

that. But one that's got a really, really

23:06

big trunk, and you just suck in all

23:08

the carbon, and use that as a kind

23:10

of carbon catcher. Except for the fact that

23:12

elephants are animals, and it's the plants that

23:14

are doing the carbon-sucking. No, but I'm thinking

23:17

that if you could do something like in

23:19

that movie, The Mutations, where Donald Pleasance is

23:21

an evil scientist and splices circus performers with

23:23

plants, then we're beginning to get somewhere. Which

23:25

is about as plausible as the real, supposedly

23:28

scientific project. So you're saying I should go

23:30

ahead with it. It's good science. Okay. What

23:32

is the process by which it is proposed

23:34

that we could reintroduce the woolly mammoth? Okay.

23:36

One of the reasons the mammoth is this

23:38

iconic species for being a resurrection target is

23:41

that it's, well, apart from it being a

23:43

very charismatic mega fauna, so a big attractive

23:45

animal. that was saying saying is

23:47

last one is last

23:49

in the last 10 ,000

23:52

years. the last 10,000 often quite

23:54

dig out mammoth out

23:56

from the the that have

23:58

been frozen for that

24:00

time, which means that

24:02

they still have soft

24:05

tissue. have soft And because

24:07

they have soft tissue,

24:09

have soft tissue, there's a likelihood

24:11

that there is going

24:13

to be well -preserved DNA

24:16

in there. DNA first

24:18

mammoth genome was cloned

24:20

in about, I think

24:22

it was 2010, which which

24:24

means you you can

24:26

sequence the mammoth genome,

24:29

which means means got a good

24:31

genetic readout of this of this organism

24:33

that's been extinct for the

24:35

last 5 ,000 years or 10 ,000

24:37

years years or so. years or so. are

24:39

various methods that you could

24:41

propose at this point, could one

24:43

of which is you one of the

24:45

entire genome and then insert

24:47

it into a surrogate cell it into

24:49

a surrogate implant that that. that cell,

24:51

that egg that is is from

24:53

probably an African elephant, which

24:55

is probably the which is probably the relative

24:58

to the extinct mammoth. And

25:00

you implant that into a surrogate mother. And

25:02

you implant that into a surrogate

25:04

mother and grow that African elephant

25:06

gives birth to a mammoth. birth

25:08

Now, this is where the where the

25:10

penis bit is relevant is relevant because

25:12

IVF in in elephants is a

25:15

particularly difficult thing to do. And

25:17

the reason for this is

25:19

because the the... the African

25:21

elephant vaginal tract is about

25:23

seven feet long seven and

25:25

has a and has a -angled bend

25:27

in it, bend in it. Which means that

25:29

means that if you can

25:31

angle your penis so it

25:33

goes round this corner. then

25:36

then you've got a better chance of impregnating that.

25:39

that elephant. Elephants are

25:41

are really good at like balancing and stuff, you

25:43

know what I mean? what I mean? So just put the

25:45

mammoth embryo on the end of the male

25:47

penis and I'm sure he could balance it all

25:49

the way in. it all the way in and through. You

25:51

know what I mean? Well again that's as plausible

25:53

as the real as the techniques being techniques

25:55

being I think we've come up

25:57

with a good schema here. up with a

25:59

good schema here. many many sort of scientific barriers

26:01

to this actually being a reality and

26:04

then the next stage is what we

26:06

don't actually know how many chromosomes a

26:08

mammoth has because that's not preserved in

26:10

it when when creatures die you can

26:13

only establish a number of chromosomes an

26:15

organism has when they are alive so

26:17

we don't know that and that's essential

26:20

for reproduction Second thing is, when we

26:22

sequence, the thing I mentioned earlier, when

26:24

we sequence genomes from creatures that have

26:26

been dead for a long time, you're

26:29

not actually getting the whole genome at

26:31

all. You're getting tiny, tiny fragments of

26:33

it. Less than 5% of the total

26:35

amount of genetic information. Don't know what

26:38

the rest of it's doing, can't get

26:40

hold of it. That's problem too. Problem

26:42

three is we don't know term. for

26:45

a mammoth. We got no idea how

26:47

long mammoth pregnancies lasted. We do know

26:49

how long African elephant pregnancies lasted. But

26:51

we seriously are proposing that we impregnate

26:54

a social intelligent animal such as an

26:56

African elephant with a different species that

26:58

we don't know whether it's going to

27:00

survive. We don't know how many genes

27:03

it's got. We don't know whether it's

27:05

compatible at all. We don't know how

27:07

long pregnancy is going to get. And

27:09

if it survives that process, this African

27:12

elephant mum. is going to give birth

27:14

to an entirely different species, which is

27:16

going to be, at best, confusing. For

27:19

all parties concerned. And then you've got

27:21

to remember that both mammoths and elephants

27:23

are highly intelligent social beings. They do

27:25

not exist in isolation. And you'll bring

27:28

back one baby into a social strata.

27:30

It doesn't belong to a social organization

27:32

that it has no... connection with, in

27:34

an evolutionary time frame that it has

27:37

not evolved to survive in, this baby,

27:39

whatever it is, hybrid de-extinctified mammoth, is

27:41

going to be both confused and very

27:43

dead very quickly. So the question of

27:46

why that Susie raised a minute ago,

27:48

to my mind, is the only question

27:50

worth asking. If you

27:53

can give me an

27:55

answer to the

27:57

question of to we

27:59

bring back of why we bring

28:02

all that stuff

28:04

about and all that stuff nonsense.

28:06

absolute I can I ask a

28:08

question a one thing that confuses me

28:10

about this right is that this, right, is

28:12

you as you alluded to there's one

28:14

baby mammoth mammoth. So you've got to got to

28:16

do this lots and lots and lots of

28:18

times to make a viable population, right? population, right?

28:21

Surely they're all going to be genetically

28:23

identical to each other, because to clones, even

28:25

if we were able to bring back all

28:27

these little baby mammoths, to and they back all got

28:29

on quite well with their mammoths and they and

28:32

everything was fine. with their elephant

28:34

mummies with each other. They're just was fine we're

28:36

just gonna have a very, very, very other gene pool

28:38

and they're just gonna go extinct we're you know

28:40

to have use to describe what

28:42

you've just described genetic gene pool and extinct.

28:45

It's just Folly. And And it also

28:47

the case if cloned, then weren't

28:49

they all be the the same

28:51

sex so we we would have

28:53

a problem in creating a

28:55

breeding population? It's so

28:57

interesting that when you begin

28:59

to pick to pick story story,

29:01

seems to never happen

29:04

in the popular press, press,

29:06

journalists or whoever's talking about

29:08

this, sure you can print

29:10

your copy can the fact

29:12

of the matter is

29:14

this the fact of the matter is, this

29:16

on scientific illiteracy and actual

29:18

illiteracy feel quite strongly about

29:20

it. I feel quite strongly turns

29:22

out. turns there any there any chance,

29:25

despite negativity, negativity, that in terms terms

29:27

of trying, for it's going

29:29

to dinosaurs, thinking of dinosaurs,

29:31

of dinosaurs, traits you could, you know, de-extinct

29:33

them? them, that is there

29:35

that possibility? I find it's Ryan Soros Rex

29:37

in or something. amber or you see

29:39

the films? Did you see the films? No,

29:41

not really my thing. I mean, just

29:43

it's just it's just why I

29:46

just don't know why we

29:48

would want to do that would

29:50

mean, yeah, sure do there's I a

29:52

sure, like, there's a a paleontologist who

29:54

apparently is trying to who things

29:56

like trying to do things like genetically genes on

29:59

in genes on in to make them express

30:01

like teeth and claws and things. Well,

30:03

exactly! Yes. Why? Like, why? What's the

30:05

point? I mean, could you make an

30:07

argument? mean, just for the sake of

30:09

argument. mean, for for example, a do -do.

30:11

So, or perhaps something that we made

30:13

extinct. about perhaps the passenger pigeon? What

30:15

about the Well, pigeon? what There may be

30:17

a moral case. If we caused the

30:19

extinction of a species, would there not

30:22

be a moral case for trying to

30:24

reintroduce it? Or should we just spend

30:26

more time trying to keep the things

30:28

that are alive, alive as opposed to

30:30

destroying them? mean, that's another crazy angle.

30:32

I'm trying to... That broadens my position.

30:34

But people have also suggested that actually,

30:36

you know, that we can do both

30:38

of those things. Like, it's not... They're

30:40

not mutually exclusive. The funding that goes

30:43

into conservation isn't the same funding that

30:45

is currently being used in these de -extinction

30:47

efforts as various companies and various groups.

30:49

At the moment, all of those groups

30:51

are funded, apparently, by sort of private

30:53

money. That wouldn't be going into conservation.

30:55

couldn't we persuade... Isn't that the thing

30:57

we need to do, then? Persuade people.

30:59

To me, it feels a little bit

31:02

like, you know, when we have these

31:04

fantasies about going to live on Mars.

31:06

Why try and terraform somewhere else where

31:08

we've got a place called Terra, which

31:10

we just need to try and keep

31:12

the form of? You know, you look

31:14

at what is out there, the Mars.

31:16

giraffe, the rhinoceros, the shrew, whatever it

31:18

might be, the pygmy shrew, one of

31:20

my favourite shrews. I might go through

31:23

the whole list. But, you know, that

31:25

seems to me to be... Is that

31:27

really what we're talking about with de -extinction?

31:29

I will make a case for de

31:31

-extinction of one thing. We've been focusing

31:33

on fauna the entire time, but I

31:35

think there's a flora that we need

31:37

to focus on bringing back. that that So,

31:39

really I'm a massive fan of anything

31:41

banana -flavoured. But

31:44

anything that's banana -flavoured, like your banana

31:46

milkshake from fast food places or banana

31:48

sweets, is actually designed off the original

31:50

banana, which now no longer exists. The

31:52

banana that we know and love, which

31:54

is all one species, is a different

31:56

banana to the one we used to

31:58

have. and then that one got killed

32:01

off. I want that one back. that one back.

32:03

to taste the original banana. The banana,

32:05

are based on, because it's not based not

32:07

because it's not, I'm not actually, If lost the

32:09

current banana, I'm like, the but I want

32:11

to taste the original banana. want to taste

32:13

the And I feel like that's what we

32:15

should be focusing on. we should be focusing on. Please. I

32:18

I don't know if you've yet used

32:20

it as your regular catchphrase on

32:22

the tour, but if you can end

32:24

every routine with, you see what

32:26

I'm saying see what I'm to taste the

32:28

original banana, that would be, that is

32:30

a great catchphrase. I think it's

32:32

a really good point good point, I think

32:34

what I the de -extinction projects, the high

32:36

profile ones, are doing is really

32:38

sort of a bit what is was

32:40

saying, but they're really massive distractions from

32:42

the ecological crises that could, we

32:44

should be spending money on and we

32:46

do that should be spending on. We tend to

32:48

focus on what we refer to

32:50

as to as charismatic mega fauna, know, all

32:52

all the animals that Robin just

32:54

listed, the nice ones, the

32:57

pretty ones, and the the pretty ones, and

32:59

the shrews. Hey! Sorry. I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

33:01

just I'm that fussed about that fussed

33:03

Have you ever seen a pigment

33:05

shrew? Have you ever seen a picnic shrew? Yeah.

33:07

point is that when other species

33:09

that are less charismatic, You

33:12

know, the know, I one always use

33:14

an example is like is like Indonesian

33:16

which is going to go extinct in to go

33:18

years time as a result of climate

33:20

change. When that a result of climate change.

33:22

When that will collapse,

33:24

but where is the

33:26

project to save

33:28

insects or sea grasses? And that's why

33:30

we should be should be focusing,

33:32

because nothing will change mammals

33:34

come back. Nothing will change

33:37

if we resurrect the

33:39

Tasmanian tiger. tiger. Maybe the American

33:41

passenger pigeon might might something,

33:43

but everything is going to

33:45

change when when goes. goes. On the flip side

33:47

the flip side of that, you know,

33:49

we're you know, we're obviously heading we're

33:51

we're in the fastest extinction event

33:53

that event known. known, but don't we all don't

33:55

we all agree, because we it so

33:57

of it so human We're we're

33:59

always just like oh my you know

34:01

we think about in terms of

34:03

our survival and our effect on the

34:06

planet but once we go something

34:08

will, life will survive it. Susie? Did

34:10

we say that it was bad

34:12

when things went extinct? I think so

34:14

we've we've been arguing that it's

34:16

not a good thing. I mean I

34:18

think I think that it should

34:20

be considered a black mark on our

34:23

in our ledger if creatures go

34:25

extinct as a direct result of our

34:27

actions and that is the extinction

34:29

event that we are going through right

34:31

now. I disagree with your premise

34:33

that we should be devoting massive resources

34:35

to bring back organisms that have

34:37

gone extinct as a result of our

34:40

actions because it costs a lot

34:42

and it's a lot of effort and

34:44

I think that we should register

34:46

that we screwed up and did bad

34:48

things and correct our behavior in

34:50

the future. I don't think we should

34:52

dedicate massive resources to pursuing scientific

34:54

follies in order to forgive ourselves for

34:57

being terrible. So I sound really

34:59

misanthropic. I'm the president of Humanists UK.

35:03

So another devil's advocate point of

35:05

view for you then you

35:07

talking about seagrass earlier and the

35:09

potential that could go extinct

35:11

or that it will even go

35:13

extinct based on current trends

35:15

if we develop this technology now

35:17

if this money has gone

35:19

into developing this technology can we

35:21

then apply it to stop

35:24

things going extinct in the future

35:26

and then to reintroduce them.

35:28

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I'm going

35:30

to say one thing to

35:32

counter all of the negativity I've

35:34

brought to this discussion today

35:36

which is this science sometimes needs

35:38

big boosts from public support

35:40

in order to generate interest, excitement

35:42

and money. And the real

35:44

story is that these are technologies

35:46

that are being used to

35:48

develop new techniques and new understanding

35:50

of genetics and cloning and

35:52

all of these things in general

35:54

and actually the hubristic we're going

35:56

to bring back bring just a

35:59

is get people interested. to get And

36:01

I do accept that as

36:03

a bit of an argument, as a

36:05

that of an need to get

36:07

the public involved, we need to

36:09

excite people with science fiction,

36:11

Jurassic Park excite and actually what

36:13

the scientists are doing at these

36:15

places Park just doing basic research.

36:17

what the And they, I'm pretty

36:19

sure, I know some of them.

36:21

is just sure they also know

36:24

that we're never, I ever

36:26

to see. sure they also know that we're never

36:28

ever going to see see... cold elephants.

36:30

These are things that are never

36:32

going to exist at all. at I

36:34

think they know this but I

36:36

think this is actually a way

36:38

of generating funds so they can

36:40

actually do some interesting research in

36:42

related areas research that's the

36:44

only defensive line I will

36:46

concede. defensive to cut

36:48

out the rest of the things you

36:51

said. we're going to cut out the rest of the things you

36:53

said. Susie, as as a paleontologist and I

36:55

know you've been in Mongolia and

36:57

Utah you know, a few weeks ago, ago,

36:59

you are looking at kind of, know, you

37:01

strike on something and you're seeing

37:03

a little bit of the history of

37:05

life, the how does that change your

37:07

framing of kind of the understanding

37:09

of what went before, the extinction, all

37:11

of that extinction. of you hit upon

37:14

something you think, oh my goodness,

37:16

here was something that oh my goodness, here was

37:18

planet that might have gone. does

37:20

that the you philosophically? Well, I

37:22

think, I think know, the the point that we

37:24

made made earlier our after our extinction there

37:26

will be something else and the planet will

37:28

go on. on. think when you have

37:30

the the of kind of of time,

37:32

time, you see you see how the

37:34

climate has changed through time, the through

37:36

environment has changed, how animals have changed

37:38

have changed and of course, in response to

37:40

that response how humans have just been

37:42

here just fraction of a second of a

37:45

the context of geologic time and

37:47

that probably And that you know, exactly what

37:49

you said that what you said that... We will will

37:51

go extinct but there will be will be life, be

37:53

there will be something the planet will

37:55

carry on with or or without us I you think

37:57

you go know when you go and you're

37:59

looking at at something that's 135 million

38:01

years old or whatever, you

38:03

get that sense and that

38:05

perspective of time. Do you

38:07

ever wake up in a

38:09

cold sweat seeing a future

38:12

earth where a sentient giant

38:14

millipede has just found the

38:16

fossil of you? I

38:19

hadn't yet but now I

38:21

might. Imagine having so few

38:24

legs. And then it'd de

38:26

-extinct you and then you

38:28

wouldn't be whinging. Imagine how

38:30

quickly it would dig you

38:32

up as well. Now,

38:39

we ask the audience a question.

38:41

The extinct creature I would most

38:43

like to see roaming the world

38:45

again is. What have you got,

38:48

Brun? And Whiddicombe. I'm

38:56

not going to tell you the story again. You

38:58

do know about the time that she cured my diarrhea

39:00

but I'll tell you another time about that. I've

39:02

got someone who wants to either bring back the Loch

39:04

Ness monster. I'm not sure they're gone or David

39:06

Bowie. Or if we

39:08

could combine both. What a beautiful thing

39:10

to every now and again just

39:13

see a lad insane bobbing in the

39:15

water and but elaborate. Schrodinger's

39:17

cat so I would know for sure

39:19

if it was dead or alive. The

39:23

incisaurus made extinct

39:25

by the predatory

39:27

coxiesaur. I've

39:37

got the pterodactyl because

39:39

wings can only get better.

39:44

That was so worrying because last

39:46

night we had nine different puns

39:48

based around Brian's big pop hit

39:50

and I thought it wasn't going

39:53

to happen today so well done

39:55

whoever that was. And they wonder

39:57

what it would taste like so. I

40:00

would probably do the good

40:02

reason a bringing that's a you

40:04

can eat them, for

40:06

bringing back dinosaurs. a can of

40:08

bread. Yeah, brilliant. You You don't have

40:10

to eat the whole thing, the whole

40:13

thing. Just a a bit of the

40:15

filling. Actually, I I would probably do the wing

40:17

do the When you have a chicken

40:19

sandwich, you don't put a have a

40:21

chicken two pieces of bread, do

40:23

you? a chicken in two Someone doesn't

40:25

know how to protein load. Someone doesn't

40:27

know how to protein load. I like

40:29

this this one from Sophie, mitochondrial

40:31

leave, Eve we can meet meet humanity's

40:33

think that's a really nice. think

40:36

it's really nice. mitochondrial leave never existed.

40:39

You Eve not coming on this

40:41

show You are not coming on this show again! You are

40:43

the the most biologist I've met. met, I

40:45

have I have met some... biologist.

40:47

I'm sorry. This is my 10th This is

40:49

my I think time, and I think

40:52

my final time I remember the first time

40:54

you came the first time you

40:56

came on you just done that

40:58

TV Will there be there be snow

41:00

this winter you remember? you And you were

41:02

all had your little red hat

41:05

on with all the all the ringing,

41:07

now now you're just black black. not

41:09

really any not really any point, we're all going to

41:11

dying, nobody anything back back either back either. I'm

41:13

going through my... I'm going through my eemoscience my

41:16

phase, right? Leave me alone, you're not my

41:18

Leave me alone, you're not

41:20

my real dad. you don't have a real mom,

41:22

can you you don't have a

41:24

real mom? Can you Explain why there's no

41:26

why there's no relief. Oh, Oh, it's

41:29

a concept that was made popular in

41:31

the 90s, and it doesn't really work

41:33

in any significant way. in any bit like way.

41:36

We're a bit like Diyarem's album.

41:40

Oh no, know, better than

41:42

that. than that. Thank you so

41:44

you so much to

41:46

our guests who are being Susie Maitman and

41:49

Rutherford and Reelina! Next

41:51

week it's the final

41:53

episode of week it's the

41:55

final episode of this series so because

41:57

it's the end of of term we are

41:59

allowed to have toys and for some

42:02

reason that means it's going

42:04

to be be toys a tobacco enema a

42:06

fork that's stuck stuck in a

42:08

bottom and an x -ray machine

42:10

that has been taking photographs

42:12

of a poo so poo so

42:14

we're going to be we're going to

42:16

be what the archives of the Royal of

42:19

we're Society the we're going

42:21

exploring the unexpected history of

42:23

the human body. There

42:25

is a is a 16th century lift the

42:27

flat book which involves Satan. got

42:29

some good stuff there, haven't

42:32

they? they forward

42:34

to that, everybody.

42:36

Goodbye. good stuff

42:38

there, aren't

42:41

they? So

42:43

look forward

42:46

to that

42:50

everybody. So

42:54

now, nice again. Hello, Russell

42:56

Russell I here. to I used to

42:58

love British history. Be proud of

43:00

it, Henry VIII, Queen Queen Victoria, massive fan

43:02

of stand -up comedians, obviously, Bill

43:04

Hicks, Hicks, Richard that has become much

43:06

more challenging, for I am the

43:08

host of BBC Radio 4's Evil

43:10

Genius. The show where we take

43:12

heroes and villains from history and try to

43:14

work out whether they to work out, were they genius.

43:16

genius. Do not catch up on BBC sounds

43:19

by searching Evil Genius if you want to

43:21

see your heroes destroyed. you But if, like heroes

43:23

me, you quite enjoy it, have a little...

43:25

search. Listen to Evil Genius like me,

43:27

you Russell Kane, go to BBC a

43:29

have your world destroyed. to

43:32

Evil Genius with me, Russell

43:34

Kane, go to BBC Sounds

43:36

and have your world

43:38

destroyed. Yoga is more is

43:40

more than just exercise. It's

43:43

the spiritual practice that

43:45

millions swear by. by. And in

43:47

2017, a a university

43:50

tutor from London, joins

43:52

a yoga school that promises

43:54

profound transformation. It felt

43:56

a really safe and welcoming

43:59

space after the... classes I felt

44:01

amazing. But soon that calm

44:03

welcoming atmosphere leads to something

44:05

far darker, a journey that

44:07

leads to allegations of grooming,

44:09

trafficking and exploitation across international

44:11

borders. I don't have my

44:13

passport, I don't have my

44:15

phone, I don't have my

44:17

bank cards, I have nothing.

44:19

The passport being taken, the

44:21

being in a house and

44:23

not feeling like they can

44:25

leave. World of Secrets is

44:27

where untold stories are unveiled

44:29

and hidden realities are exposed.

44:31

In this new series, we're

44:33

confronting the dark side

44:36

of the wellness industry, with

44:38

the hope of a

44:40

spiritual breakthrough gives way to

44:42

disturbing accusations. You just

44:44

get sucked in so gradually,

44:47

and it's done so

44:49

skillfully that you don't realise.

44:51

And it's like this

44:53

the secret that's there. I

44:55

wanted to believe that,

44:58

you know, that whatever they

45:00

were doing, even if it

45:02

seemed gross to me, was

45:04

for some spiritual reason that

45:06

I couldn't yet understand. Revealing

45:08

the hidden secrets of a

45:10

global yoga network. I feel

45:13

that I have no other

45:15

choice. The only thing I

45:17

can do is to speak

45:19

about this and to put

45:21

my reputation and everything else

45:23

on the line. I want

45:25

truth and justice. and

45:30

further. other people to not

45:32

be hurt, for things to be

45:34

different in the future. To

45:36

bring it into the light and

45:38

almost alchemise some of that stuff

45:40

that went on. and

45:42

take back the power. World

45:46

of Secrets. Season 6. The

45:48

Bad Guru. Listen wherever you get

45:50

your podcasts. You