Last week, scientists in Siberia discovered a remarkably preserved woolly mammoth.

The woolly mammoth's body was found in permafrost and contained well-preserved blood.

Should scientists attempt to clone it?

Discussions about bringing back woolly mammoths, and other extinct animals, have been increasing.  The idea of reviving woolly mammoths was discussed at a TEDxDeExtinction event in Washington, D.C. on March 15.

Cbsnews.com gives some background on the newly discovered woolly mammoth:

The mammoth, which is estimated to have lived 10,000 to 15,000 years ago, was discovered on the Lyakhovsky Islands in northeastern Russia by an expedition team from North-Eastern Federal University.

The scientists believe the blood and tissue of the animal was preserved due to the permafrost, permanently frozen soil.

Despite freezing temperatures of 14 degrees Fahrenheit, the mammoth's blood was liquid, still leaking under the animal.

Attempts to clone extinct animals have been going on for years.  Even with a little bit of success.  But SHOULD we clone extinct animals?

Some say we should clone to learn and advance science or to be able to experience an extinct creature.

Some opponents to cloning worry about long-term effects on ecosystems or "playing God".

There are many arguments on both sides.

The idea that we may be able to clone a woolly mammoth is fascinating, but one I'd like to see left to the movies.

Follow Matt Milhouse on Facebook and Twitter.  Listen weekdays, 10:00am – 3:00pm.