Latest news with #NicRawlence
NZ Herald
25-05-2025
- Science
- NZ Herald
Jurassic tech: Company claims the dire wolf is ‘de-extinct', but is it ethical?
The biotech company, backed by big-name investors and celebrities alike, has a goal to bring back the likes of the woolly mammoth, the Tasmanian tiger, the northern white rhino and the dodo. But, even if it's successful, is it right? And, have we learned anything from the happenings in Jurassic Park? University of Otago department of zoology associate professor Nic Rawlence told The Front Page he challenges the term 'de-extinction'. 'The technology they've developed is stunning and will have very real-world conservation benefits, but it's not de-extinction. This is a genetically modified, designer grey wolf. 'If you think of all the individual DNA letters in a genome, which are millions and millions of them, they've only done 20 modifications to that genome. It's only a small number of modifications. But, if we think of functional de-extinction, all they've got is something that looks like a dire wolf,' he said. SOUND ON. You're hearing the first howl of a dire wolf in over 10,000 years. Meet Romulus and Remus—the world's first de-extinct animals, born on October 1, 2024. The dire wolf has been extinct for over 10,000 years. These two wolves were brought back from extinction using… — Colossal Biosciences® (@colossal) April 7, 2025 Even if it were possible to bring back a species, Rawlence said, the ecosystem it was part of no longer exists. 'If you try to de-extinct a moa, New Zealand's only got 25% forest cover. At the time of human arrival, it was 80% forest cover... Central Otago, for example, used to be covered in lancewood and kōwhai, which is weird to think of, but there's no analogue of that anywhere. 'So you haven't got the ecosystems for these animals to go back into. A lot of the ecosystems have been highly modified, they're full of predators. But, also, if you are gonna introduce animals into an ecosystem, you need them to be genetically healthy, not inbred. Think Tutankhamun married his sister, the Habsburgs out of Europe, or even Queen Victoria married her cousin. 'For a population to be genetically healthy, you need at least 500 individuals, which is a very tall order indeed,' he said. The technology could instead be used in ongoing conservation efforts, Rawlence said. 'You could use it to reintroduce lost genetic variation back into kākāpō or takahē so that they have the evolutionary potential to respond to ongoing climate change or diseases. In kākāpō, you've got aspergillosis, lung fungus, or crusty bum. 'So we could use that technology to help what we've got rather than, in my view, assuaging human guilt for causing extinctions.' In Colossal Bioscience's efforts to de-extinct the woolly mammoth, it has bred genetically modified mice with mammoth-inspired traits, such as woolly coats and cold tolerance. The company says the loss of these large, cold-tolerant mammoths over the past 10,000 years has stripped the ecosystem of the Siberian tundra – a grassland that once efficiently absorbed carbon. 'If the mammoth steppe ecosystem could be revived, it could help in reversing the rapid warming of the climate and more pressingly, protect the Arctic's permafrost – one of the world's largest carbon reservoirs,' its website says. 'How many hundreds of millions of dollars are you going to have to spend to bring back enough mammoths to trample Siberia? It won't be 500 mammoths, it's probably gonna be thousands. I think the money's better spent elsewhere,' Rawlence said. 'Sometimes conservation can be sexy, kākāpō or takahē, but often the non-sexy species are the ones that are just as highly endangered, and trying to get money is a lot easier if people are investing in something akin to Jurassic Park.' Listen to the full episode to hear more about whether we've learned anything from Jurassic Park and which 'un-sexy' species need the most help.
RNZ News
15-05-2025
- Science
- RNZ News
Return of the huia? Why Māori worldviews must be part of the ‘de-extinction' debate
By Nic Rawlence & Phillip Wilcox of There is growing international interest in bringing back some of New Zealand's extinct birds, including the huia. Photo: Supplied / Roseberys The recent announcement of the resurrection of the dire wolf generated considerable global media attention and widespread scientific criticism, but beyond the research questions, there are other issues we must consider - in particular, the lack of indigenous voices in discussions about de-extinction. It is undeniable that biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences achieved a major scientific breakthrough. It has successfully changed the genome of a vertebrate species, introduced desired traits and created apparently healthy hybrid wolf pups. The main scientific criticisms were that genetically engineering gray wolves with dire wolf traits doesn't constitute de-extinction and, regardless of the achievement, we still have to ask whether we should bring back extinct species in the first place. Given the company's goals of resurrecting species significant to indigenous groups, including the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) and the moa, it is vital indigenous views contribute to decisions. Colossal Biosciences' achievement shows the potential of new gene-editing technologies to contribute to conservation efforts. This could include introducing desirable traits into threatened species or removing harmful ones. In Aotearoa New Zealand, hapori Māori (tribal groups) are the kaitiaki (guardians) of many threatened taonga (treasured) species. There is growing international interest in the resurrection of some of New Zealand's extinct birds, including the moa, Haast's eagle and huia, despite Māori concerns. Their voices in this debate are crucial, as are those of other indigenous groups, when biotech proposals are relevant to them. Colossal Biosciences has an Indigenous council (made up of North American Indian nations) and has established an advisory committee for the thylacine de-extinction project with indigenous representation, but in our engagements with Māori from around the country over the past decade, we've found virtually no Māori support for the de-extinction of taonga species. One reason we have heard involves a lack of suitable habitats for de-extinct species. Most of Aotearoa New Zealand is highly modified, with only 25 percent of native forest remaining - this requires ongoing predator control. That means there are very few suitable sites to release de-extinct species. For some lost ecosystems, there is no suitable analogue at all, and the effort required to establish and manage sites would be substantial. There would also need to be ongoing financial resourcing to support kaitiaki responsibilities, which would be expected of Māori communities within whose rohe (traditional boundaries) de-extinct species might be released. In our view, kaitiaki prefer gene technology funding to be spent on applications that support their guardianship role, such as environmental DNA, or they would like it expanded for the management of remaining and often-threatened taonga species. Dire wolves successfully cloned by Colossal Biosciences. Photo: CNN/Colossal Biosciences Without new funding, there is a real opportunity-cost risk of money being pulled from other areas, potentially resulting in further extinctions of endangered taonga species. In all likelihood, maintaining a genetically diverse population of a de-extinct species - with at least 500 individuals - would be a challenging exercise, given how slowly New Zealand's taonga species breed. Without meaningful Māori support and involvement, the release of a de-extinct species would effectively constitute a breach of Article Two of te Tiriti o Waitangi - the Treaty of Waitangi. The te reo Māori version states Māori have exclusive rights to taonga. This is also the essence of the Waitangi Tribunal WAI262 claim that Māori have intellectual property rights over flora and fauna. Māori have whakapapa (genealogy) relationships with taonga species, and a moral obligation to look after their welfare and the taiao (environment) they are in. This has led to concerns that altering the whakapapa of an existing species to resemble another species is unnatural and disrespectful, compared to natural hybridisation. This could have negative consequences for hybrid species, as well as other organisms and the taiao. Hybrids may not be sufficiently adapted to existing threats - such as introduced mammalian predators - or the new environments they find themselves in. Conversely, they could be so well adapted, they disrupt the ecosystem and become a pest. There are long-held concerns that Māori have been excluded from conversations about applying gene technologies, despite the successful use of tikanga-based frameworks (customs) for evaluating specific uses of the technologies in individual cases. These concerns include potential biopiracy, bioprospecting and trademarking of taonga species by overseas companies. They are echoed in submissions to the draft Gene Technology Bill, which all but eliminates Māori consultation on the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Without substantive Māori involvement, internationally led and resourced de-extinction of a taonga species could well become yet another negative colonisation experience. Such conversations need to involve a wide range of Māori and employ tikanga-based protocols to ensure sufficiently thorough and holistic evaluation of potential de-extinction projects. There is currently nothing to stop biotechnology companies utilising specimens of taonga species housed in museums worldwide. We argue that addressing these issues and reaching a national consensus should be a prerequisite for any application of gene-editing technology in conservation, whether it is to suppress pest species or support struggling taonga species. Many of the concerns raised by Māori will no doubt be shared by indigenous people around the world. They need to be part of the conversation and critical commentary around de-extinction and potential reintroduction of organisms into the wild. Their knowledge of environmental management, which dates back hundreds to tens of thousands of years, is something we must learn from. This story was originally published on [ The Conversation.] Nic Rawlence is Associate Professor in Ancient DNA at University of Otago. Phillip Wilcox is Associate Professor in Quantitative Genetics, University of Otago.
Euronews
08-04-2025
- Science
- Euronews
No, dire wolves extinct for 10,000 years are not back. But this is what de-extinction tech could do
ADVERTISEMENT Colossal Biosciences, the company behind so-called 'de-extinction tech,' made the headlines appearing on the cover of Time magazine on Monday after claiming to have brought back dire wolves, a species that died out 10 millennia ago. But beyond hyped headlines about the return of the Game of Thrones wolf, is the science behind the alleged breakthrough backing up the storytelling? The company used genetic modification technology to create three wolf pups, which range in age from three to six months old, have long white hair, muscular jaws and already weigh in at around 36 kg, on track to reach 63.5 kg at maturity, according to researchers at the company. Dire wolves, which lived on the American continent before going extinct, are much larger than grey wolves, their closest living relatives today. It was this living species that was used through genetic engineering, to give life to the three specimens, Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi. However, independent scientists have been at pains to stress the nuance in the company's statement announcing the species' resurrection. "All you can do now is make something look superficially like something else," not fully revive extinct species, said Vincent Lynch, a biologist at the University of Buffalo in the US, who was not involved in the research. How does de-extinction tech work? Nic Rawlence, an associate professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand, also said that it was impossible to truly de-extinct a species. 'To truly de-extinct something, you would have to clone it. The problem is we can't clone extinct animals because the DNA is not well enough preserved. Even if you sequence the genome, you can't extract DNA from extinct animals in long enough chunks like you could with a living animal,' he said in a statement. Colossal scientists learned about specific traits that dire wolves possessed by examining ancient DNA from fossils. The researchers studied a 13,000 year-old dire wolf tooth unearthed in Ohio and a 72,000 year-old skull fragment found in Idaho, both part of natural history museum collections. Then the scientists took blood cells from a living grey wolf and used CRISPR technology (short for (short for 'clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats') to genetically modify them in 20 different sites, said Colossal's chief scientist Beth Shapiro. They transferred that genetic material to an egg cell from a domestic dog. When ready, embryos were transferred to surrogates, also domestic dogs, and 62 days later the genetically engineered pups were born. "So what Colossal Biosciences have produced is a grey wolf with dire wolf-like characteristics – this is not a de-extincted dire wolf, rather it's a 'hybrid,'' Rawlence said. Though the pups may physically resemble young dire wolves, "what they will probably never learn is the finishing move of how to kill a giant elk or a big deer," because they won't have opportunities to watch and learn from wild dire wolf parents, said Colossal's chief animal care expert Matt James. "Whatever ecological function the dire wolf performed before it went extinct, it can't perform those functions" on today's existing landscapes, Lynch added. ADVERTISEMENT Broader application for conservation of other species Colossal has previously announced similar projects to genetically alter cells from living species to create animals resembling extinct woolly mammoths, dodos and others. Colossal also reported that it had cloned four red wolves using blood drawn from wild wolves of the southeastern US's critically endangered red wolf population. The aim is to bring more genetic diversity into the small population of captive red wolves, which scientists are using to breed and help save the species. This technology may have broader application for conservation of other species because it's less invasive than other techniques to clone animals, said Christopher Preston, a wildlife expert at the University of Montana who was not involved in the research. ADVERTISEMENT But it still requires a wild wolf to be sedated for a blood draw and that's no simple feat, he added. Colossal CEO Ben Lamm said the team met with officials from the US Interior Department in late March about the project. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum praised the work on X on Monday as a "thrilling new era of scientific wonder" even as outside scientists said there are limitations to restoring the past.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Sensational dire wolf claims questioned by scientists: 'Extinction is forever'
Sensational claims by a United States company that it has brought an extinct animal back from the dead have been questioned by scientists. Rather than recreating a dire wolf, as claimed by Colossal Biosciences, several leading New Zealand-based animal experts claim the company has simply produced a modern-day gray wolf 'with dire wolf-like characteristics'. 'This is not a de-extincted dire wolf, rather it's a 'hybrid'. And importantly, it's what they think are the important dire wolf-like characteristics,' University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Professor Nic Rawlence said. Because dire wolves were wiped out 12,500 years ago, the snippets of its DNA that remain have been heavily degraded and can't be faithfully sequenced. Dire wolves diverged from gray wolves up to six million years ago, and Rawlence has dismissed the notion that 20 changes to 14 genes to the latter species is significant enough to claim the former has been brought back from extinction. Colossal regularly makes international headlines for its ongoing work to bring the Tasmanian tiger, dodo, and wooly mammoth back from extinction. On Tuesday, it's CEO Ben Lamm announced its unexpected dire wolf news. "Our team took DNA from a 13,000-year-old tooth and a 72,000-year-old skull and made healthy dire wolf puppies," he said. While it's achievements like this that make headlines, the company is also quietly funding important scientific advancements in wildlife protection. In March, it announced a $US3 million investment in the University of Melbourne, which is working to genetically modify frogs so they aren't killed by chytrid fungus, a disease that has already led to the decline of 500 amphibian species, including 90 extinctions. Also on Tuesday, Colossal revealed it had cloned red wolves, the world's most critically endangered wolf. Importantly, this achievement adds new genetic complexity to a species that was almost declared extinct in the 1960s and is threatened by a lack of diversity in the DNA of the tiny population that remains. While many scientists are in awe of the company's advancements in genetic engineering, it's the claims that it makes about de-extinction that are frequently called into question. In March, when the company revealed it had created a wooly mouse with similar traits to a mammoth, it was commended for continuing to remind the community about the "power" of genetic modifications. But a leading molecular genetics expert at the University of NSW, predicted the de-extinction of mammoths was decades away. 'It's not a matter of changing seven genes, you would have to change thousands, and you have to do the reproductive biology too. Overall, it would be like stacking up ladders to get to the moon,' Professor Merlin Crossley said. 🦈 Theory emerges after massive shark found bitten in half 😳 Aussie woman's 'incredible' 500-year-old discovery 🐕 Rare find in Aussie bush by sniffer dog Colossal's dire wolf claims have sparked similar scepticism from other New Zealand-based experts. Professor Philip Seddon from the University of Otago's department of zoology said the company's creation no doubt involved 'amazing technological breakthroughs', but he dismissed the notion that its new pups, Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi are real dire wolves. 'Certainly, this involves advances in genetic technology, and these might have applications for the conservation of existing species — but the return of dire wolves? No,' he said. 'In the same way that Colossal's plans for woolly mammoths and dodos will involve the genetic modification of related species. We have GMO wolves, and might one day have GMO Asian elephants, but for now extinction really is forever." Associate Professor Michael Knapp from the University of Otago's Department of Anatomy agreed. 'These new dire wolves are genetically almost certainly closer to gray wolves than to ancient dire wolves, but they look more like dire wolves than gray wolves. These are not the dire wolves that went extinct more than 10,000 years ago, as the press release may suggest,' he said. Love Australia's weird and wonderful environment? 🐊🦘😳 Get our new newsletter showcasing the week's best stories.
