原文地址：https://www.theguardian.com
原創翻譯：龍騰網 翻譯：雲海的鯨
正文翻譯：
Back from the dead … a clone of the Tasmanian tiger could walk the Earth again, 80 years after it was declaredextinct. Photograph: Popperfoto/Getty Images
死而復生…在被宣布滅絕後，一隻克隆的塔斯馬尼亞虎，時隔八十年再次行走了在這個星球上。（譯註：即袋狼，剛開始我也懵圈了，原來這貨有三個叫法，又叫狼又叫虎。）
照片來自：波普爾福特/蓋蒂
It sounds like something from a sci-fiB-Movie: scientists have moved a step closer to bringing the Tasmanian tiger back from extinction.
這聽起來像是科幻電影中的東西：在如何把已經滅絕的塔斯馬尼亞虎復活這個問題上，科學家已經取得了重大的進展。
Also known as the thylacine, or Tasmanianwolf, the world’s largest carnivorous marsupial died out in its native landsometime during the 1930s. Despite almost 4,000 reports of 「sightings」 since,including tantalisingly inconclusive video footage as recently as 2008, mostregard the species as having gone for ever.
袋狼，也被稱為塔斯馬尼亞狼，作為世界上最大的肉食性有袋類動物，在20世紀30年代，它在它所棲息的土地上滅絕了。儘管自那以後有近4000條「目擊」報導，其中還包括一段於2008年拍攝的吊人胃口的錄像，但大多數人都認為這個物種永遠地離開了我們。
So the mapping of the thylacine’s geneticsequence, which in theory makes cloning the living animal itself possible,raises tricky questions. How far should we go to reverse the tide of extinction?And what ecological and ethical issues might this raise?
在理論上，袋狼的基因測序圖譜使對它進行活體克隆成為了可能，但這也引出了一連串棘手的問題。為了遏制自然界生物滅絕的浪潮，我們能做到什麼程度？這又會引起怎樣的生態和倫理問題？
Professor Andrew Pask of the University ofMelbourne, who led the team sequencing the thylacine’s DNA, has no doubts aboutbringing back lost species, seeing a clear moral obligation to do so. 「We wereresponsible for hunting [the thylacine] to extinction – in thatcase, we almost owe it to the species to bring it back」.
墨爾本大學的安德魯·帕斯克教授領導他的團隊從事DNA測序工作，他們對復活已經滅絕的物種沒有異議，因為他們清楚地看到了我們所負有的道德義務。「我們應該對人類狩獵活動導致的滅絕負責 - 在這種情況下，我們完全應該把滅絕的物種復活」。
Others are less sure. Some have accusedscientists of 「playing God」, while even National Geographic ran the coverheadline 「Reviving Extinct Species. We Can. But Should We?
然而還有一群人對此不以為然。有人指責科學家是在「扮演上帝」，甚至連《國家地理》雜誌都在其封面刊登了這樣的標題「恢復滅絕的物種。我們做得到。但是，我們應該做嗎？」
But such concerns may be too late, as thegenie is already out of the bottle. Scientists in Cape Town recently announcedthat the quagga, a dark subspecies of the familiar zebra that went extinct morethan a century earlier, had been revived. The team used selective breeding ofzebras, which showed characteristics of their lost cousin, to 「reverseengineer」 the quagga into existence.
但是這樣的擔心可能來的太晚了，因為潘多拉的魔盒已經被打開了。開普敦的科學家們最近宣布，早在一個多世紀前就已經滅絕的斑驢已經被他們復活。該團隊對具有斑驢特徵的斑馬進行了選擇性育種，藉助「逆向工程」使斑驢重現於世。
The resulting creature certainly looks likea quagga, even if it is not an exact genetic match. Critics claim that althoughyou can breed for similar appearance, you cannot recreate the animal’sbehaviour and ecology. The same may be true of a project to revive the woollymammoth, which has yet to progress beyond the early stages.
即便基因配對得可能沒那麼準確，但藉助這種手段創造的生物外表看起來一定會像斑驢，。批評者聲稱，雖然你可以創造出與之相似的外觀，但是你無法重塑這些動物的行為方式，也無法復原他們所處的生態系統。同樣的情況也適用於一直停留在起步階段沒有取得進展的復活長毛猛獁的項目。
So what next? I』d personally love to seegreat auks swimming around St Kilda, or a dodo back on Mauritius. But I’m notholding my breath.
那麼接著呢？就我個人而言是很樂意看到大海雀（譯註：一種生活在北極圈附近的鳥類，由於人類的捕殺而滅絕）在聖基爾達附近來回遊泳，或者渡渡鳥重新回到模里西斯。但我並沒有因此感到興奮不已。
As for the thylacine itself, even ifscience could make cloning possible, the discovery that the animal’s genetichealth was compromised, at some point in its long history, means that anycloned animals are unlikely to survive, especially back in the wild.
就拿袋狼來說，我們發現在歷史的長河中這些動物的基因健康已經受損，即使科學使得克隆技術成為了現實，通過克隆復活的史前動物也將難以存活，尤其是在他們被放歸野外後。
評論翻譯：
There are circumstances where benefit toecology and the environment in general can be achieved by this science, thereintroduction of the wolf in Scotland for example.
在某些情況下，這項科技對生態和環境大體上是有好處的，例如重新引進蘇格蘭狼。（譯註：1000年前，狼皮在英國是獻給國王和貴族的貢品。國王的騎士們為了嬴得土地，要把那塊土地上的狼趕盡殺絕。到16世紀，狼在英格蘭和威爾斯滅絕了。到1760年，不列顛群島上的狼被完全滅絕。）
I have ethical objections to building andstockpiling nuclear weapons, and to war.
Reviving lost species? No ethicalobjections whatsoever. Don't be ridiculous.
我對建造和使用核武器、發動戰爭的行為表示道德上的反對。復活已經滅絕的動物？完全沒有意見。別那麼可笑好嗎？（譯註：嘲諷文中一些人對復活已滅絕動物的反對態度。）