Download The story “Taming the Wild”

yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Pathogenomics wikipedia , lookup

RNA-Seq wikipedia , lookup

Metagenomics wikipedia , lookup

Genomic imprinting wikipedia , lookup

Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup

Population genetics wikipedia , lookup

Ridge (biology) wikipedia , lookup

Epigenetics of human development wikipedia , lookup

Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup

Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup

Gene wikipedia , lookup

Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup

Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup

Minimal genome wikipedia , lookup

Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup

Designer baby wikipedia , lookup

Genome evolution wikipedia , lookup

Biology and consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup

History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup

Koinophilia wikipedia , lookup

Microevolution wikipedia , lookup

The story
“Taming the Wild”
by Evan Ratliff
National Geographic, March 2011
Ratliff notes that the information in this pitch letter has not been verified, and some information
changed substantially in the reporting of the story.
The pitch
The domestication of animals, anthropologists argue, is one of the most crucial developments in
the course of human history. Yet for such a seminal event, the science behind domestication
remains surprisingly opaque. Basic questions remain, in particular, about the biological
conditions that allowed humans to gain dominion over animals. Why is domestication so rare,
for instance, with only 14 of the 145 large mammals ever having been tamed? Why do
domesticated animals often differ physically from their wild counterparts—with floppy ears and
spotted coats, for example—in similar ways across species? (Something noted by Darwin
himself, in The Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication.) And perhaps most
tantalizingly: why could species like the horse be tamed, while close relatives like the zebra,
despite numerous attempts, could not?
Increasingly, researchers believe that the answer to these questions is imbedded in the animals’
DNA, and even in our own genes. Using advanced gene sequencing techniques in species
ranging from pigs to domestic dogs to zebra fish, scientists are on the trail of the “domestication
genes” that hold the key to tameness and the physical characteristics that go with it. It is a
pursuit with implications not just for our fundamental understanding of evolution and animal
behavior, but also for the future of food production and the conservation of endangered species
through captive breeding.
This story would examine that pursuit, centered around what is widely considered the most
remarkable evolution experiment ever conducted. The study, begun by the Russian geneticist
Dmitry Belyaev in Siberia in the 1950s and continuing today, involved selectively breeding two
sets of wild silver foxes. Those least afraid of humans were mated in an attempt to create a
tame population, while another set was selected for aggressiveness. In just 35 generations, the
researchers created a group of perfect pet foxes that bond deeply with humans, alongside a
group that attacks or flees humans on sight. They’ve done the same more recently in rats and—
less successfully, but just as interestingly from a scientific perspective—in minks. Compressing
what was assumed to be millennia of evolution into 50 years, they’ve almost single-handedly
established that physical traits like floppy ears, short noses, and spotted coats, “free ride” on
tameness genes.
The experiment itself has a strange and colorful history, dating to a time when the Soviet
scientific establishment rejected Mendelian genetics. Belyaev’s older brother, also a geneticist,
was sent to a labor camp based on his work, and died there. So Belyaev started the fox study in
Siberia, away from the eyes of the scientific bureaucracy. Eventually, as attitudes changed, he
became a renowned Soviet biologist. Since his 1985 death, a woman named Lyudmila Trut has
continued the research, now in partnership with a Russian researcher at Cornell.
With the help of researchers in the U.S. and Germany, today they are using the most advanced
quantitative genetics techniques to pursue domestication genes in the foxes and rats. They’ve
already shown that tameness is associated with surprisingly small changes in the brain’s gene
activation, and undermined some long-held beliefs about the evolution of dogs. They’ve also
built a genetic roadmap that they hope will lead them to the genes themselves in the next two
Other researchers are attacking the question across a variety of species. Another Russian
scientist based in Siberia has a parallel study of pigs, examining the genetic basis of a pig’s fear
of humans, while French researchers evaluate how those genes also may regulate the pig’s
eating habits. (Scared pigs, in other words, equal skinny pigs.) At a lab at the University of Idaho,
and another at the University of Turku in Finland, researchers are studying the genetics of
domestication in rainbow trout and zebra fish, to see how the genes of fish change as their
behavior adapts to captivity. Those findings that could be significant for the growing aquaculture
industry. Still other geneticists are taking apart the genome of cattle and comparing it to
samples from ancient cattle bones, and lining up the DNA of the domesticated chicken alongside
the wild red junglefowl.
A story that explores these efforts, anchored in the Russian fox study, would offer a wide variety
of photo opportunities, across wild and tame species. The Belyaev study has been written about
sporadically over the years, but not in tremendous depth, not in a broader context, and not
since the researchers have advanced significantly into the genetics phase of the research.
Finally, despite a superficial similarity, this would not repeat the concepts of the 2002 National
Geographic story “Wolf to Woof.” Here we will be attacking fundamentally different ground: not
showing the history of our pets, but investigating what it means for an animal to be tamed, and
the biology underlying animal domestication.