Posted on 09/13/2022 8:56:55 AM PDT by Red Badger
Commentary: A research project to bring the Tasmanian tiger back from oblivion reignites debate about de-extinction.
A preserved thylacine body lies curled up on a metal table. Two scientists in white lab coats handle the body.
PIC at LINK (Getty)
The preserved body of a thylacine being prepared for display in an Australian museum in 2005.
When Hank Greely, a law professor at Stanford University, took to the stage at 2013's TEDx De-extinction conference in Washington, DC, he posed a simple question.
"De-extinction," he started. "Hubris? Or hope?" The answer, he offered to a smattering of laughter, was "Yes."
Greely's talk, which you can watch on YouTube, has played on my mind a lot since US biotech startup Colossal announced on Aug. 16 that it will finance an extremely ambitious research project to resurrect the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger. The dog-like marsupial, native to Australia, was hunted to extinction in the early 1900s. Some scientists believe that, today, we have the genetic engineering tools and bioinformatics processing power to bring it -- or something like it -- back from the dead.
Almost a decade removed from Greely's talk, the idea of de-extinction remains controversial and hotly debated. If the thylacine resurrection announcement is anything to go by, perhaps it's even more contentious today, as climate change, pollution and the biodiversity crisis have only worsened in the past 10 years, raising questions about which problems science should be tackling.
As for the opinion of experts and scientists, it seems like there's a 50-50 split. There are those who believe it to be a worthy pursuit, one that will lead to new conservation technologies and improve our understanding of living species so we can better protect them today.
And then there are those who believe de-extinction is simply spectacle; an unethical, misguided gimmick. Some claim the scientists involved are doing it all for "media attention" and describe the work as technically impossible. Extinction is forever, they say, and nothing can change that.
They're right. Extinction is forever.
"De-extinction" suggests we're able to undo extinction. Reverse it. But the term is misleading. It lacks nuance. And it's even a problem in the scientific literature -- scientists don't fully agree on what de-extinction is.
When the International Union for the Conservation of Nature developed guidelines for resurrecting species in 2016 it specifically noted that none of the methods to de-extinct a species will ever produce a "faithful replica." We can't undo extinction. In fact, the IUCN guideline document doesn't even use the word de-extinction in its title. It's called the "Guiding principles on creating proxies of extinct species for conservation benefit" and proposes that proxy is a much better way to define the kinds of species we will resurrect.
Colossal's well-funded projects on the thylacine and the woolly mammoth adhere to this idea, even if their marketing suggests otherwise. The company and its collaborators will not be able to create an exact genetic replica of animals that once roamed the Earth. Nor will the team at Revive & Restore, working on resurrecting the passenger pigeon. As we currently understand things, it's impossible to bring back a species' behavioral and physiological traits (including things like its microbiome) simply by tinkering with DNA.
"De-extinction" suggests we're able to undo extinction. Reverse it. But the term is misleading. It lacks nuance. Scientists don't fully agree on what de-extinction is. However, it is possible to make significant changes to the DNA, and this technology is improving exponentially. It's very likely that scientists will be able to create a "proxy" species — a thylacine-like creature, perhaps, or some elephant-mammoth hybrid — in the future. Colossal and its research team at the University of Melbourne think this can happen in about a decade for the thylacine, maybe even sooner for the mammoth. Those timelines seem overly optimistic given the technical hurdles that remain, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
The goal of Colossal is to eventually drop its thylacine-like marsupials into Tasmania and mammoth hybrids into the Arctic tundra. This, the researchers say, will have benefits for the ecosystems and the planet. But there are so many questions to answer before we reach that point.
Which is why I keep coming back to Greely's "hubris or hope" talk. In it, he lays out both the potential risks and benefits of bringing back extinct species. He also mentions, presciently, the research won't be funded by governments or research grants. Rather, it will be bankrolled by the private sector and philanthropists. It's a future that's come to pass, so I'm inclined to think Greely knows what he's talking about.
After the news of the thylacine project broke on Tuesday, I asked Greely if there's anything he'd change from that talk almost a decade ago. He said "I think things are [largely] headed where I expected, and wanted — de-extinction as a kind of 'luxury' research project, without government funding, without hysteria, but with care."
I would argue he's mostly correct, though there seems to be a little extra hysteria creeping into the narrative these days. The most common argument against de-extinction I've seen since Colossal's announcement is that scientists are wasting money and time trying to bring back extinct species when we're living through a biodiversity crisis and sending creatures extinct at an unprecedented rate. This is, presumably, heightened by the fact we continue to see climate change wreak havoc on all life on the planet.
Another common argument is that if we have the technology to "de-extinct" species, then extinction doesn't matter anymore. This is a curly moral hazard but it's definitely not the case de-extinction should render extinction irrelevant. Even if it did, should we stop researching the methods needed to bring species back? Should we stop funding these projects altogether? Would that be prudent?
I liken it to the solar geoengineering experiments that would potentially dim the sun with aerosols. Scientists aren't really keen on having to deploy these measures, but what if it became so bad that we had to? Should we not, at the very least, conduct the basic research and science experiments to know? One of the most famous solar geoengineering experiments, Scopex, faced public backlash for not adequately engaging with the community about the experiment it was set to run. As a result, it began a "robust and inclusive" round of engagement with the public.
The conversation needs to begin for de-extinction, too.
What any de-extinction project should do, before we ever get to holding a baby thylacine in our arms, is discuss exactly how such a project will work with all the key stakeholders, from the public to other scientists and industry, as well as with government.
Because if de-extinction researchers truly believe they can resurrect something that walks, runs and weirdly opens its jaw like a thylacine — and they seem to believe they can — then we need to understand where and how these creatures might be returned to the world. We have to know if the public would even want that. Projects like those overseen by Colossal need to start discussions with traditional owners of the land where they might repopulate with a pack of thylacines or elephant-mammoth hybrids. They need to better understand how the creatures might experience pain or suffering once they're brought into today's world, a world that is drastically different from the one their ancestors departed. They need to consider the environmental impacts and the ecosystems they are attempting to alter and convey the risks and uncertainty in the process.
And we need to weigh up, as Greely did, the risks and the benefits. Each of us. For the final word, I'll turn to the professor once again.
Ending his TEDx talk in 2013, he said, "I'm just one voice. I'm not gonna make this decision — you're gonna make this decision."
Updated Aug 21: Edits for clarity around bringing back species as they once were.
I read this book.
It ended badly.
L
Right, what could go wrong
As far as I know, the Thylacine was not hunted into extinction. Therefore, it is not the case that you could “bring it back” and just convince people not to hunt them, and then enjoy a world full of thriving Thylacines.
Rather, I think it is more accurate to say that the Thylacine could not compete in the world. The environment was not suitable, the food was not available, the conditions were not amenable. If you “bring them back” they are likely to go extinct again.
You could also try to bring back the Ford Pinto, but they just aren’t going to sell.
Well... no.
It developed tumors on it's face. Probably from a virus from some of the other species that were imported. The tumors grew until it could no longer see to hunt or eat.
This was what caused the species to die out.
So if you clone it to "bring it back" you are going to run into the same problem. Because the virus is still out there.
My first car was a Pinto.......................
Playing God is the most extreme form of arrogance. It is guaranteed to be a failure. It’s also a waste of time, money, and resources. Isn’t there something more productive and beneficial that these so-called scientists could be doing?
Thanks Red Badger. Calflocenes and Biceplocenes should not be left out of this effort. /rimshot
I’m sure Fauci has a vaxx for now........................😉
Gentlemen, start your engines!
Poor little devils.
Agreed.
On another note, the movie franchise should have ended after the first movie.
Stupid idea. Species go extinct for a reason, not all are due to mankind.
Not needed. A very expensive exercise in a vanity project.
Will keep dozens of scientists and lab assistants employed for a long time.
Some extinct animals would not really fit in today’s world.
There may be very few areas in which they could live and thrive without taking areas already populated with wild animals.
Wild animals are steadily losing free roaming, open spaces because Man continues to encroach on those spaces. The Human wants to build housing or mine for underground minerals.
Where would a Wooly Mamoth live in today’s world?
Being on exhibit in a zoo or gated facility is not a natural existence. Rain forrests are being destroyed year by year.
There goes another natural hiding spot for many now extinct animals.
Aren’t you talking about the Tasmanian Devil?
I have never heard of any such conditions for the Thylacine.
The last one died in something like the 1960s.
For what it’s worth there are still claimed Thylacine sightings. I hope they’re real.
“What could possibly go wrong?”
I loved that scene. I was cheering the dinosaur for eating a lawyer....Soft and juicy!
> It’s also a waste of time, money, and resources. <
Bingo.
The grand prize for this is to resurrect Woolly Mammoths.
Several Mammoth in good condition have been recovered from glacial ice, and Russia has set aside land in Siberia that is believed would be ideal for them.
Once a fertilized embryo has been created, or a blend with elephant DNA, it would be implanted into a female elephant. Then once there is a male and female breeding pair, they would gradually replace the elephant DNA with mammoth DNA until they had genetically pure mammoths.
Then, just grow the herd until the species is self sustaining.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
