Colossal Biosciences wants to bring the moa back from extinction

Australia Broadcast Center

25-07-2025

Thomas and Ollie, both 15, turn to a classic 1990s sci-fi film as a point of reference when the topic of "de-extinction" is raised.
"It just depends on the animal and what it can do to society, like a dinosaur — that would just not be a good thing," Thomas says.
"[So] not the plot of Jurassic Park."
"I think the plot of Jurassic Park would be cool," Ollie says.
Marvee, 14, thinks "some things would go wrong".
"I've watched Jurassic Park," she says.
The film is also a conversation starter for academics such as Nic Rawlence from the University of Otago's palaeogenetics laboratory.
"It's like that quote out of Jurassic Park from Malcolm … 'We were so busy thinking about whether we could, that we didn't stop to think about whether we should,'" he says.
But discussions about bringing extinct animals back to life are no longer limited to the genre of science fiction.
American biotech company Colossal Biosciences has recently announced plans to bring back a flightless bird from New Zealand that could grow as tall as 3.6 metres.
The moa became extinct about 500 years ago due to hunting, habitat destruction and introduced predators.
The company has also been working to resurrect the woolly mammoth and the Tasmanian tiger.
In October last year Colossal Biosciences announced the birth of what it said were the first dire wolves to be born in more than 10,000 years.
The moa project has generated excitement among followers, including director Peter Jackson, who has invested about $23 million into the project.
"It has given me more enjoyment and satisfaction than any films ever have," he says.
"It's uniquely a New Zealand bird, so it's something that we've always been very fascinated with."
But what does it mean to "de-extinct" a species?
"The process of de-extinction is that we extract DNA from ancient bones and we sequence that DNA and assemble ancient genomes," Colossal Biosciences chief science officer Beth Shapiro says.
"To de-extinct the moa we are collecting DNA from all nine species of moa.
"We'll be comparing the genome sequences to genomes of living birds to identify what it is that made moa unique,and using the tools of genome editing to make those changes in the DNA sequence of the living, close relatives."
This definition of de-extinction is a point of contention.
"De-extinction, in the strictest sense, is bringing back an animal that has been extinct, bringing it back to life," says Associate Professor Rawlence says.
Dr Rawlence explains that high-quality DNA is needed for cloning to be successful.
"The problem with extinct animals is that, for the most part, their DNA is really badly degraded," he says.
"It's like you've taken that DNA, and you've put it in a wood-fired pizza oven at 500 degrees overnight and it comes out fragmented in shards, crumbs, dust, chemically modified."
This degradation means ancient DNA is too damaged to clone.
Dr Rawlence says the only way to create an animal that is similar to one that is extinct is to use genetic engineering.
"So bringing back the dire wolf, you've created a genetically engineered grey wolf — you would do the same with emu and moa," he says.
"A good analogy is if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
"What we have is we've got something that looks like a dire wolf, but we're not entirely sure it actually behaves like a dire wolf."
Ollie worries about how the behaviour of genetically engineered animals could disrupt ecosystems.
"[The moa] might not have the same behaviours as it had a long time ago," he says.
"It could disrupt the food chain or it could kill other animals."
Zoe, 16, agrees.
"Why do we need the moa, kind of?" she asks.
"It's like, what purpose does it have here? It could maybe endanger emus."
Gabriel, 16, says he thinks de-extinction projects could take money away from other scientific research.
"If they're just taking an emu and sort of like changing it to bring [the moa] back, I mean, what are we really going to gain from this?" he says.
"I don't think it's very necessary.
"There's no need to bring them [the moa] back and take money out of the science … budget as a whole."
Dr Rawlence says public interest is often the key to securing investment in projects.
"It's something to be said that it's easier to get funding from the private sector and celebrities to de-extinct an animal than it is to, say, genetically engineer one [an animal] so it can survive," he says.
"The public aren't interested and want to hear about Jurassic Park and de-extincting animals."
Dr Rawlence is opposed to de-extinction but believes the technology involved is important and should be developed to help save endangered animals.
"You could use this technology to genetically engineer animals to be resistant to a disease, giving them the chance to evolve with climate change in a fast-changing world," he says.
"Colossal scientists said we have a moral obligation to bring back these species and undo the sins of the past.
"I'd say we need to learn from them, otherwise we're doomed to repeat them."
Marvee and Zoe's feelings about the technology depend on its application.
"I think it's a really good idea just helping the endangered animals at the moment, like polar bears or rhinos," Marvee says.
"If it's used for commercial purposes … that'll cross the line, I reckon," Zoe says.