Scientists Are Eyeing Tasmanian Tigers for an Extinction Comeback — After Bringing Back Dire Wolves
U.S. biotech company Colossal Bioscience and the University of Melbourne are collaborating to revive a number of species lost to history
Lead scientist Professor Andrew Pask revealed they've now mapped the genome of the Tasmanian tiger, an extinct marsupial that hasn't been seen in its natural habitat since 1936
The findings come after Colossal Bioscience announced earlier this year that they've essentially revived the extinct dire wolfScientists have successfully mapped the genome of the Tasmanian tiger, an extinct marsupial native to Australia that was last seen in its natural habitat in 1936.
The discovery, a collaboration between U.S. biotech company Colossal Bioscience and the University of Melbourne, could have the Tasmanian Tiger revived in as little as eight years, 9 News reported.
"We've been able to sequence the entire thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger genome now, absolutely every single bit of code from one end to the other of the genome," Lead scientist Professor Andrew Pask told the outlet.
"We've been able to make the first really key stem cells that we can do this whole genetic engineering process that we need to recreate the thylacine," he added.
Tasmanian Thylacine Advisory Committee chair Derwent Valley Mayor Michelle Dracoulis told 9 News, "The thylacine is not just an animal where I come from, it's part of the identity of the people that live there."
The research announcement comes after Colossal Bioscience similarly managed to revive the extinct dire wolf earlier this year. The company unveiled three fluffy dire wolf pups, named Romulus, Remus and Khalessi. The species of wolves was notably featured in hit show Game of Thrones.
The company uses gene editing to modify the traits of existing animals to the point that their DNA becomes, essentially, that of lost animals.
'Our team took DNA from a 13,000-year-old tooth and a 72,000-year-old skull and made healthy dire wolf puppies,' Colossal CEO and co-founder Ben Lamm said in a statement in April.
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
George R. R. Martin, the writer behind the novels on which Game of Thrones was based, said in a statement at the time, 'Many people view dire wolves as mythical creatures that only exist in a fantasy world, but in reality, they have a rich history of contributing to the American ecosystem.'
Both the dire wolves and Tasmanian tiger projects are a part of Colossal's de-extinction project, in which they are seeking to revive a number of species lost to history.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
6 hours ago
- Medscape
210-Day Flood Health Risks: What Doctors Must Know
Flood exposure is linked to increased risks for hospitalisation for all causes and for 10 specific conditions, with relative risks ranging from 1.11 to 1.61 and persisting for up to 210 days. An analysis of 300 million hospitalisation records from 747 communities in eight countries and territories showed that floods accounted for as much as 0.27% of all-cause admissions. Background Floods are the most frequent natural disaster, with approximately 23% of the global population exposed to floods with depths > 0.15 m during once-in-100-year flood events. Projections indicate that the severity, duration, and frequency of floods will escalate due to increasingly frequent extreme precipitation events and rising sea levels caused by global warming. In addition to the direct health impacts caused by the physical force of floods or related accidents, emerging evidence suggests that flooding may have broad indirect effects on human health. Current epidemiologic studies on flood-related health impacts focus primarily on disease incidence, mainly digestive diseases, infectious diseases, and mental disorders. Understanding the impact of flooding on hospitalisation risk is crucial for healthcare providers to prepare for increased demand following such events. METHODOLOGY: Researchers examined daily hospitalisation data from 2000 to 2019 in 747 communities across Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam, averaging 13 years of follow-up per community. The analysis included 300 million hospitalisation records, with a flood day defined as any day from the beginning to the end of flood events in each community. Associations between flood days and daily hospitalisation risks were estimated using a quasi-Poisson regression model with a non-linear distributed lag function, followed by a random-effects meta-analysis. TAKEAWAY: The cumulative relative risks [RRs] of hospitalisation after flood exposure were 1.26 (95% CI, 1.15-1.38) for all causes, 1.35 (95% CI, 1.21-1.5) for cardiovascular diseases, and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.39-1.86) for diabetes. Associations were modified by climate type, flood severity, age, population density, and socio-economic status, with stronger effects observed in communities with higher population density or higher socio-economic status. Flood exposure contributed to up to 0.27% of all-cause hospitalisations, 0.41% of cardiovascular disease hospitalisations, and 1.93% of diabetes admissions. Health impacts persisted for up to 210 days after exposure ended, except for infectious diseases (90 days) and mental disorders (150 days). IN PRACTICE: 'Health service providers should anticipate increased health risks during and after floods and prepare for the heightened service demands, possibly through strengthening capacities in medical supplies, human resource management, and triage strategy. Public health institutions should closely monitor the reasons for hospitalisation after floods as a method for disease control and efficient resource allocation in the aftermath of floods. Policymakers should prioritise enhancing health system resilience to natural disasters, recognising that overwhelmed health systems after floods can lead to severe disease burden and even avoidable deaths,' the study authors wrote. SOURCE: The study was led by Yuming Guo, PhD, and Shanshan Li, PhD, of the Climate Air Quality Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and included Paulo Saldiva, MD, PhD, of the Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo in São Paulo, Brazil, and was published online on April 08, 2025, in Nature Water. LIMITATIONS: The Dartmouth Flood Observatory dataset, which primarily checks events mentioned in news reports, may under-represent flooding, particularly in South America. The exposure assessment was conducted at the community level rather than at the individual level, as the exact residential addresses were kept confidential. Similarly, a community may have both flooded and non-flooded areas, which has the potential to lead to underestimation of risk. DISCLOSURES: The study was supported by the Australian Research Council, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and National Research Council of Thailand. The funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Gizmodo
16 hours ago
- Gizmodo
Your Smartphone Is a Parasite, According to Evolution
Head lice, fleas and tapeworms have been humanity's companions throughout our evolutionary history. Yet, the greatest parasite of the modern age is no blood-sucking invertebrate. It is sleek, glass-fronted, and addictive by design. Its host? Every human on Earth with a wifi signal. Far from being benign tools, smartphones parasitise our time, our attention and our personal information, all in the interests of technology companies and their advertisers. In a new article in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, we argue smartphones pose unique societal risks, which come into sharp focus when viewed through the lens of parasitism. What, exactly, is a parasite? Evolutionary biologists define a parasite as a species that benefits from a close relationship with another species – its host – while the host bears a cost. The head louse, for example, is entirely dependent on our own species for its survival. They only eat human blood, and if they become dislodged from their host, they survive only briefly unless they are fortunate enough to fall onto another human scalp. In return for our blood, head lice give us nothing but a nasty itch; that's the cost. Smartphones have radically changed our lives. From navigating cities to managing chronic health diseases such as diabetes, these pocket-sized bits of tech make our lives easier. So much so that most of us are rarely without them. Yet, despite their benefits, many of us are hostage to our phones and slaves to the endless scroll, unable to fully disconnect. Phone users are paying the price with a lack of sleep, weaker offline relationships and mood disorders. From mutualism to parasitism Not all close species relationships are parasitic. Many organisms that live on or inside us are beneficial. Consider the bacteria in the digestive tracts of animals. They can only survive and reproduce in the gut of their host species, feeding on nutrients passing through. But they provide benefits to the host, including improved immunity and better digestion. These win-win associations are called mutualisms. The human-smartphone association began as a mutualism. The technology proved useful to humans for staying in touch, navigating via maps, and finding useful information. Philosophers have spoken of this not in terms of mutualism, but rather as phones being an extension of the human mind, like notebooks, maps, and other tools. From these benign origins, however, we argue that the relationship has become parasitic. Such a change is not uncommon in nature; a mutualist can evolve to become a parasite, or vice versa. Smartphones as parasites As smartphones have become nearly indispensable, some of the most popular apps they offer have come to serve the interests of the app-making companies and their advertisers more faithfully than those of their human users. These apps are designed to nudge our behaviour to keep us scrolling, clicking on advertising and simmering in perpetual outrage. The data on our scrolling behaviour is used to further that exploitation. Your phone only cares about your personal fitness goals or desire to spend more quality time with your kids to the extent that it uses this information to tailor itself to better capture your attention. So, it can be useful to think of users and their phones as akin to hosts and their parasites – at least some of the time. While this realisation is interesting in and of itself, the benefit of viewing smartphones through the evolutionary lens of parasitism comes into its own when considering where the relationship might head next – and how we could thwart these high-tech parasites. Where policing comes in On the Great Barrier Reef, bluestreak cleaner wrasse establish 'cleaning stations' where larger fish allow the wrasse to feed on dead skin, loose scales, and invertebrate parasites living in their gills. This relationship is a classic mutualism – the larger fish lose costly parasites and the cleaner wrasse get fed. Sometimes the cleaner wrasse 'cheat' and nip their hosts, tipping the scale from mutualism to parasitism. The fish being cleaned may punish offenders by chasing them away or withholding further visits. In this, the reef fish exhibit something evolutionary biologists see as important to keeping mutualisms in balance: policing. Could we adequately police our exploitation by smartphones and restore a net-beneficial relationship? Evolution shows that two things are key: an ability to detect exploitation when it occurs, and the capacity to respond (typically by withdrawing service to the parasite). A difficult battle In the case of the smartphone, we can't easily detect the exploitation. Tech companies that design the various features and algorithms to keep you picking up your phone aren't advertising this behaviour. But even if you're aware of the exploitative nature of smartphone apps, responding is also more difficult than simply putting the phone down. Many of us have become reliant on smartphones for everyday tasks. Rather than remembering facts, we offload the task to digital devices – for some people, this can change their cognition and memory. We depend on having a camera for capturing life events or even just recording where we parked the car. This both enhances and limits our memory of events. Governments and companies have only further cemented our dependence on our phones, by moving their service delivery online via mobile apps. Once we pick up the phone to access our bank accounts or access government services, we've lost the battle. How then can users redress the imbalanced relationship with their phones, turning the parasitic relationship back to a mutualistic one? Our analysis suggests individual choice can't reliably get users there. We are individually outgunned by the massive information advantage tech companies hold in the host-parasite arms race. The Australian government's under-age social media ban is an example of the kind of collective action required to limit what these parasites can legally do. To win the battle, we will also need restrictions on app features known to be addictive, and on the collection and sale of our personal data. Rachael L. Brown, Director of the Centre for Philosophy of the Sciences and Associate Professor of Philosophy, Australian National University, and Rob Brooks, Scientia Professor of Evolution, UNSW Sydney This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
E&E News
a day ago
- E&E News
Forest preservation can worsen climate change, UN affiliate says
Carbon markets that fund forest preservation and tree-planting might actually be worsening climate change by increasing risks for wildfires that emit massive levels of greenhouse gases, a new United Nations-affiliated report says. Forests have been seen as one of the most effective places to counter climate change by absorbing carbon emissions. But that's changed, says a May paper from the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), an academic arm of the international U.N. In the past decade, wildfires of record-breaking size have erupted in places such as Canada, Australia, Siberia and the Amazon rainforest. This week, forest wildfires forced evacuations of thousands of Canadians in Manitoba and Alberta provinces. Advertisement 'Forests and peatlands have increasingly transitioned into massive carbon emitters in many parts of the world due to increasing wildfires,' the report says. Climate policies and carbon-mitigation activities 'fail to account for these substantial emissions.'
