Latest news with #ColossalBiosciences
ABC News
5 days ago
- Science
- ABC News
Colossal Biosciences wants to bring the moa back from extinction
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.
Otago Daily Times
6 days ago
- Science
- Otago Daily Times
Sights set on resurrection
It is a bold scenario worthy of a hollywood director. Imagine the camera rising to an extreme long shot, revealing a dramatic landscape dotted with large flightless birds. Genetic engineering firm Colossal Biosciences is offering a hint that one day this image will become less film fiction and more scientific fact. It recently announced plans to resurrect the extinct South Island giant moa in collaboration with the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre, film-maker Sir Peter Jackson, scientist Paul Scofield and the University of Canterbury. Standing up to 3.6m tall and weighing 230kg, the giant moa disappeared from Te Waipounamu about 600 years ago, hunted to extinction two centuries after Polynesian settlement. Colossal will work closely with the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre to integrate mātauranga Māori, traditional knowledge, in its approach, providing for indigenous leadership in scientific innovation. Ngāi Tahu Research Centre director Prof Mike Stevens said during the 14th and 15th centuries, moa provided meat for sustenance and bones and feathers for tools and decoration, especially in Te Waipounamu. "The loss of moa, through over-harvesting and habitat modification, was a salutary lesson as to the New Zealand archipelago's 'fragile plenty'." Ngāi Tahu was particularly excited by this project because of the extent to which it enabled Ngāi Tahu to exercise rangatiratanga (leadership) and tikanga (customs) and the potential to bring ecological and economic aspirations into a singular frame. Colossal chief science officer Beth Shapiro said birds were among the most endangered species in New Zealand and around the globe, but had the fewest biotechnological tools available to protect them. "Because of their unique reproductive system, for example, it is not possible to 'clone' birds in the way that Dolly the sheep was cloned, so a new approach is needed to pass edits in DNA to the next generations." As Colossal developed tools for intra-species surrogacy, captive management and re-wilding, each of these technologies would be extendable to other species. "We will create genomic resources for living species that improve our capacity to manage them and participate in ecosystem restoration projects that will benefit living species." Colossal gained worldwide media attention recently when it revealed what it described as the return of the dire wolf, an American predator that had been extinct for more than 10,000 years. Using ancient samples of dire wolf DNA and genetic engineering as well as domestic hounds as surrogate mothers, three dire wolves were birthed. To resurrect the giant moa, Colossal was evaluating two of the closest living relatives of moa as surrogate hosts, the tinamou and the emu, Dr Shapiro said. "This is a long-term project and partnership and we are hopeful that the first chicks will be born within a decade." Whether de-extinction is legally possible within the country's existing biotechnology and environmental laws is something that will require further investigation. As a new concept, as far as she was aware, no country had laws explicitly focused on de-extinct species, Dr Shapiro said. "Our goal is to work with our partners in Aotearoa New Zealand to explore the regulatory frameworks that would apply to our and other conservation work and to develop pathways for these tools to be used to introduce de-extinct species and augment existing conservation work."
Forbes
6 days ago
- General
- Forbes
Should We De-Extinct The Woolly Mammoth? No, Save The Elephants
Should we bring back extinct animals? Wrong question. Why are we bringing back extinct animals when we have animals, plants, and fungi that are going extinct now, daily? By 2050, up to half of all species now alive could be extinct. Should we sacrifice the lives that can still be saved for poorly conceived experiments? As much fun as it may be for well-funded geneticists, from the perspective of conservation this is inefficient and frustrating. Bringing back a 12 foot tall flightless bird does sound hilarious, but is that the best use of resources? 12% of all bird species are endangered. If fans of Game of Thrones want to make their special wolves a reality, then they have the right to fantasize or show intellectual curiosity about the possibility. I would simply like to put in a word for the animals that exist now, that are important, and that are being threatened. Research has shown that the pursuit of de-extinction can have a net negative effect on biodiversity, the great cause the proponents claim to champion. Paris Hilton and the CIA are among the investors in Colossal Biosciences, a company that's valued at $10 billion, and undertaking several de-extinction projects. They 'brought back' the dire wolf last year, and they've bred a woolly mouse in anticipation of a woolly mammoth. The progress that humanity has made with genetics is impressive, but is this application useful? Beyond curiosity, creating cute new pets, or as a preface for transhumanism, what's the specific utility to humanity in bringing back an animal that by definition, isn't adapted for the world and will spend its life in a zoo; we'll be breeding novelties to create more caged, emotionally stunted animals for people to leer at for an afternoon. Let us note that no extinct animals are actually being brought back. Some of their genetic traits are being edited into their nearest living relatives, or animals that look like them thanks to convergent evolution, and those proxies are what we're talking about. Proponents are redefining terms as is convenient for them, as Colossal does on their website with 'de-extinction.' The Dire Wolves born last year are not Dire Wolves. They're Grey Wolves turned white with stronger jaws and about another dozen gene edits. They sure aren't the Dire Wolves that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, and diverged from living Canids about 5.7 million years ago. Dire wolves were genetically closer to a Dhole or Dingo anyway. This is a farce. The 'Woolly Mammoth' will be a hairy Asian Elephant; the 'Moa' will be an edited Emu. Get Ready For Moa Flu Zoonotic diseases are those that pass between humans and animals. Rabies, Bird Flu, Swine Flu are examples. These disease occur more often when different animals are kept in contact with each or people, which allows the diseases to evolve in different environments. Disease inducing microorganisms can jump between hosts, mutating and adapting and sometimes evolving into something devastating. The risk for ancient animals is greater as they don't have immune systems suited for modern diseases. How will the hybrids being created react, when they have half archaic and half modern DNA? Will this make them more resilient, or more vulnerable? This is a big unknown and we shouldn't be optimistic. From this resurrection would be a disease for which no modern Sapien is adapted. Remember the Native Americans and smallpox. Do we want to reintroduce viruses that can reduce our population by an order of magnitude? The Bird Flu and Covid were bad enough, shall we find out what the Moa or Dodo Flus will be like? June 2025, Cardamom Mountains, Cambodia. Habitat Loss, driven by development projects like ... More hydropower dams, continues to be the biggest threat to the Asian Elephant. False Cure, Red Herring Of A Solution What's cooler than breeding hybrids of extinct animals? Keeping them alive in the first place. At this pace, half of living species will be gone forever by 2050. When people think that we can bring back extinct animals, which we now understand isn't in fact what's happening, they'll think that protecting the species we have is less of a priority. After all, if an organism is that important then we'll just birth another one. It falsely allays concerns about biodiversity, the variety of life that is essential to strong ecosystems, where every organism with its niche performs its vital task. Removing any link on a food web has impacts on others; we can't view the death of one species as being important only for that species. What led to the death of the Dire Wolf in the first place? The death of all the herbivores it ate. To the point, why aren't we bringing back these forgotten herbivores? Because they weren't featured on Game of Thrones so no one cares. June 2025, Cardamom Mountains, Cambodia. A mother can birth a calf once every four years. The ... More threats against these dwindling animals continue. Stop deforestation. Do not rely on the misnomer of de-extinction. If we use the de-extinction programs to garner interest in conservation, then I support them. Otherwise it's hard not to view this as an unnecessary indulgence. Given the constant threats against Asian Elephants in the Cardamom Mountains that Wildlife Alliance protects, we can't get excited about making a hairy one while ignoring the bald ones that still exist, for now, constantly threatened by large development projects like hydropower dams. Let these projects bring attention and funding to current at-risk species, to excite the imagination and educate people about the importance of biodiversity and protecting nature. Otherwise, don't do it.
ABC News
22-07-2025
- Science
- ABC News
Extinct Species
MICHELLE WAKIM, REPORTER: What do you think about bringing extinct animals back to life? PERSON: I think it's a bit scary, but I think it's a really cool idea. PERSON: The world has adapted without them, but then if they come back, the right climates and stuff won't be right for them. PERSON: It would be really cool, but it could interrupt the food web or the food chain. PERSON: It could go really wrong. PERSON: It could very wrong. PERSON: Some things would go wrong. PERSON: It just depends on the animal and what it can do to society, like a dinosaur, that would just not be a good thing. PERSON: Well, I watched Jurassic Park. So not the plot of Jurassic Park? PERSON: Yeah, no, not the plot of Jurassic Park. PERSON: I think the plot of Jurassic Park would be cool. When we talk about de-extinction, bringing extinct animals back to life, Jurassic Park, the 1993 sci-fi film, often comes to mind. JURASSIC PARK: Welcome to Jurassic Park. But now, in real life, America Biotech company Colossal Biosciences has announced plans to de-extinct this. Do you know what this animal is? PERSON: An emu? PERSON: Uh, it looks like an emu. PERSON: I don't know. PERSON: An emu? This is the moa, and to be fair, it is in the same family as the emu. Moa were big flightless birds that once inhabited New Zealand and became extinct around 500 years ago due to over-hunting, habitat destruction and introduced predators. And the moa isn't the first animal Colossal Biosciences is keen to de-extinct. They've been working on woolly mammoths, the Tassie tiger, and these guys, which the company says are the first dire wolves to be born in more than 10,000 years. BETH SHAPIRO, COLOSSAL BIOSCIENCES: The process of de-extinction is that we extract DNA from ancient bones, and we sequence that DNA and assemble ancient genomes. DNA, which stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, is like a blueprint that exists inside the cells of all living things. It's made up of chemical bases, adenine, thionine, cytosine, and guanine. They form the building blocks of DNA, which determines how all living things look and act. Sometimes you can also find DNA preserved in dead things. Now might be a good time to bring in Associate Professor Nick Rawlence. Part of his job is to get DNA out of archaeological, and fossil remains. NIC RAWLENCE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO: So, think Jurassic Park, but we don't bring back dinosaurs. De-extinction in the strictest sense is bringing back an animal that has been extinct, bringing it back to life. The only way to do that is through the process of cloning. So, if we think of Dolly the sheep. NEWS REPORTER: When the world first said, 'Hello Dolly' there were hopes this was the beginning of a revolution. Dolly was the first mammal to be cloned and was born back in 1996. But the thing about cloning is you need really high-quality DNA for it to work. ASS. PROF. RAWLENCE: The problem with extinct animals is that for the most part, their DNA is really badly degraded. 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. Nic says while we can take these damaged bits of DNA and kind of put them back together like a puzzle, there will be missing pieces and holes in the final product. Sound familiar? JURASSIC PARK: Gaps in the DNA sequence. We use the complete DNA of a frog to fill in the holes and complete the code, and now, we can make a baby dinosaur. So, if ancient DNA is too damaged to clone, what is Colossal Biosciences actually doing when they claim to de-extinct animals? BETH SHAPIRO, COLOSSAL BIOSCIENCES: 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. ASS. PROF. RAWLENCE: So, the only way to get an animal that's similar to one that was 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. 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. PERSON: If you made it look like it and genetically put it together like that, then it might not have the same behaviours as it had a long time ago. PERSON: If they're just taking an emu and sort of like changing it to bring it back, I mean, what are we really going to gain from this? I don't think it's very necessary. PERSON: Why do we need the moa, kind of? It's like, what purpose does it have here? It could maybe endanger emus? PERSON: They might create a new animal, that's nothing like the original one, that went extinct. So, knowing all of this, we're left with the classic dilemma. JURASSIC PARK: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. ASS. PROF. RAWLENCE: I'm against de-extinction. I would say by all means develop the technology but use it to save what we've got left. 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. 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. PERSON: If it's used for commercial purposes, that would cross the line, I reckon. If it's used to kind of help the environment and save endangered species or stuff like that, that could be really good. PERSON: Maybe like polar bears. I know they're, like struggling because of climate change. So maybe, yeah, doing something for the polar bears. PERSON: If it's going to cause more harm than good then there's no need to bring them back and take money out of the science budget as a whole. PERSON: Especially with climate change it's a much better idea to focus on the animals that we have now because, like, we don't know if in a while those animals are going to be extinct as well.
ABC News
21-07-2025
- Entertainment
- ABC News
Moa De-extinction
The US company Colossal Biosciences has announced plans to bring back the Moa - an extinct giant bird that once called New Zealand home. It's got the backing of a famous Kiwi filmmaker. But not everyone is convinced that we can resurrect extinct animals or that we should be trying. Join Justina on an epic adventure to discover what it takes to bring something back from extinction.
