Just last month, the biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences announced audacious plans to revive the extinct flightless bird the moa. This flightless giant was New Zealand’s largest bird and could stand over 12 feet tall. This impressive endeavor uses some of the most cutting-edge genetic technologies, like DNA extraction and cloning methods. The ambition is to bring back a species that disappeared from these islands roughly 500 years ago, thanks to over-hunting, habitat loss, and the arrival of new predators.
The plan has stirred a controversy that has brought out fierce advocates on both sides. People are worried about the prospect of de-extinction and the threat it would pose to today’s ecosystems and conservation efforts. Beyond the technical aspects, the project has sparked a renewed public conversation about the project’s potential and the ethical implications of genetic engineering.
The Science Behind De-Extinction
Colossal Biosciences is in the process of collecting DNA from all nine known species of moa, essential for successful cloning efforts. Dr. Nic Rawlence, one of the leading specialists in this area, notes that high-quality DNA is the key to making this process work. He agrees that he’s against de-extinction, the underlying technology has potential for rescuing endangered species.
“The process of de-extinction is that we extract DNA from ancient bones and we sequence that DNA and assemble ancient genomes,” – Beth Shapiro.
While he welcomes the latest scientific developments, Dr Rawlence warns against blindly leaping into de-extinction without understanding its wider ramifications. He contends that ethical considerations need to lead the way in these types of pursuits. He questions whether society should focus on bringing back extinct species when there are pressing concerns regarding existing endangered species.
“So bringing back the dire wolf, you’ve created a genetically engineered grey wolf — you would do the same with emu and moa,” – Dr. Rawlence.
Public Reactions and Concerns
The announcement by Colossal Biosciences has elicited varied responses, especially among young people who express both curiosity and skepticism about the project. These are all important questions that Zoe, 16, raises with the plan to bring the moa back from extinction. She fears it would pose serious threats to established wildlife.
“Why do we need the moa, kind of?” – Zoe.
Gabriel, 16, explains his concern about the monetary impact. He feels that funding these de-extinction projects will be siphoning crucial funding resources away from other significant scientific research.
“There’s no need to bring them [the moa] back and take money out of the science … budget as a whole,” – Gabriel.
Marvee, 14, expresses concern over the difficulty of doing something so unpredictable as placing an extinct species back into contemporary ecosystems. This concern represents a real apprehension that genetically engineered animals may upset these balances already in place.
“If it’s used for commercial purposes … that’ll cross the line, I reckon,” – Marvee.
The Cultural Significance of the Moa
This iconic bird has played a unique role in New Zealand’s history and cultural identity. Its revival would have monumental ramifications for the rest of the country, both environmentally and culturally. Peter Jackson, renowned director and producer, was recently seen holding a moa bone alongside Colossal Biosciences chief executive Ben Lamm. Arcadia Jackson, who sadly passed away shortly after this interview, shared her spiritual ties to the past through these ancient remains.
“It has given me more enjoyment and satisfaction than any films ever have,” – Peter Jackson.
As real-life de-extinction conversations progress, so too do the allusions to popular culture. Young people such as Thomas and Ollie recognize obvious similarities between the current de-extinction push and the story arc of Jurassic Park. They experience the thrill and fear of alarming Jurassic Park proportions at the prospect of resurrecting lost fauna.
“I think the plot of Jurassic Park would be cool,” – Ollie.
Though well-intentioned and enthusiastic about the potential benefits offered by de-extinction, primarily conservation-oriented advocates are calling for more caution. That’s not just about technical capabilities though, it’s about addressing fundamental ethical questions around humanity’s deliberate coexistence with, and shaping of, the world’s biodiversity.
