
How about a dating service where your male partners are chosen for their fitness from the Siberian permafrost? Creating long extinct life through harvested genetic remains is closer than you think. After successful experiments at the Institute for Reproductive Studies in Scottsdale, Arizona, with frozen mice sperm, scientists are now experimenting with sperm from mammoths preserved in Siberian ice.
We may one day have wooly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius), extinct since the Pleistocene, roaming around zoos and colder climes. At least it looks that way. Because of their massive size and icy cold environment, many mammoths have been preserved as frozen carcasses instead of being turned to stone, thus they are prime candidates for genetic reproduction. We really can bring them back. When originally touted in the news as a possibility, most audiences took the science to be too farfetched.
Researchers harvesting DNA and deciphering their genome feel they are on the edge of doing just that. Science as we know it is sliding down the double helix to science fiction. DNA, long bits of genetic code that form the roadmap of how we are built, is relatively easy to harvest and remarkably hardy. Even with the abuse of time, small amounts can be extracted and with that the genetic wizards are able to put the puzzle pieces back together. Frozen sperm is used in fertility clinics around the globe, the difference here is that the entire mammal is frozen before harvesting the sperm. Once harvested, the frozen sperm from long extinct male mammoths is injected into eggs from females of closely related species. While positive results have been made and papers published (see the National Academy of Sciences) a baby mammoth has yet to be conceived. 
A return debut? Yes, it seems it is true. Geneticists have mastered the craft, mapping out the genetic code on species ranging from mice to men.
So, start planning their "Welcome back" parties. Wooly's time has arrived!

Baby Got Back: Sexy Mammoths
Comments
Heidi Henderson | 05/25/08 | 11:28 AM
That's a long time. I am not sure where culturally we go from 'older man with trophy younger woman' to 'just plain creepy' but I think 60 years may be it.
I could ask the wife but I bet I won't like her response to the whole concept.
I could ask the wife but I bet I won't like her response to the whole concept.
—
Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
Hank Campbell | 05/25/08 | 11:45 AM
At the risk of sounding a maschilist pig, I'd suggest the Master Formula for optimal coupling between males and females:
Age_female = Age_male/2 + 7 years
Or the inverse: Age_male = 2 * Age_female -14 years
Here's some examples:
F17/M20 makes a lot of sense -boys are less mature than girls;
F22/M30 also does pretty well;
F27/M40 is quite ok;
F32/M50 works well for most couples;
F37/M60 starts breaking down;
F42/M70 is rather awkward - but the whole idea of aging is;
F47/M80 is indeed creepy.
I'd say the formula works well for men in the age range 16-60...
Cheers,
T.
Age_female = Age_male/2 + 7 years
Or the inverse: Age_male = 2 * Age_female -14 years
Here's some examples:
F17/M20 makes a lot of sense -boys are less mature than girls;
F22/M30 also does pretty well;
F27/M40 is quite ok;
F32/M50 works well for most couples;
F37/M60 starts breaking down;
F42/M70 is rather awkward - but the whole idea of aging is;
F47/M80 is indeed creepy.
I'd say the formula works well for men in the age range 16-60...
Cheers,
T.
Tommaso Dorigo | 04/29/09 | 07:09 AM
Heidi Henderson | 02/20/09 | 17:56 PM
Zeea Hasan | 04/29/09 | 04:10 AM
Heidi Henderson | 04/29/09 | 12:01 PM
That doesn't seem to make sense. It means a 30 year old woman has to be 18? Or am I doing it wrong?
Male 43 = Female 30/5 + 12, which is 18. I have kids older than that.
Male 43 = Female 30/5 + 12, which is 18. I have kids older than that.
—
Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
Hank Campbell | 04/29/09 | 12:55 PM
Gerhard Adam | 04/29/09 | 14:17 PM
Heidi Henderson | 04/29/09 | 14:27 PM
Yes, but you are thinking in a male-centric way. In the equation Heidi set up, the age of the female is the independent variable and the age of the male is the dependent variable. Since 155 year old women are, hopefully, not looking to do any coupling, optimal or otherwise, it does not really matter that it winds up ridiculous at the extremes.
Josh Witten | 04/29/09 | 23:50 PM
Heidi Henderson | 04/29/09 | 13:26 PM
Tommaso Dorigo | 04/29/09 | 14:29 PM
Are you not an Italian man? I am not a betting guy but, if I were, I would bet the women you found at 22 would form a line so long it could have been seen from space.
—
Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
Hank Campbell | 04/29/09 | 14:35 PM
Tommaso Dorigo | 04/29/09 | 15:09 PM
Heidi Henderson | 04/29/09 | 14:54 PM
Sure, it's for science!! I need a new Firenza football shirt anyway, though I guess it shows my age if I don't call them Fiorentina.
—
Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
Hank Campbell | 04/29/09 | 15:00 PM
Tommaso Dorigo | 04/29/09 | 15:15 PM





But can they bring back Rita Hayworth? Because this is some science worth thinking about.