Opinions on artifically creating living animals

Nature Talk
1

I just read in a news report that a biotech company has hatched living chickens from artificial egg shells.

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/nation-world/de-extinction-company-hatched-live-chicks-artificial-eggshell/507-71cd3a0d-2ec4-4480-8284-f21e2f8a175b

The company, Colossal Biosciences, is interested in bringing back extinct species. The New Zealand Moa, a 12ft flightless bird that went extinct ~600 years ago, has been cited as an example. However, it has been said that this is likely impossible, so their more realistic goal is to genetically alter living species to physically resemble the extinct ones as closely as possible.

I know this has been a topic for very passionate debate for decades, but I’m still interested in what everyone thinks.

Personally, I think the concept has some merit, but not the way they seem to want to do it. Altering living species to more closely resemble extinct species just seems like a bad idea. It seems to me like it would only ostracize those individuals from other members of their species, possibly preventing them from fulfilling all or part of their natural life cycle.

I also wonder what ecological role they would serve. From my understanding, conservationists attempt to reintroduce locally extinct species largely because of their role in the ecosystem. Would this new hybrid be able to perform this missing role, or would it still have the same behavior as the species it was derived from, or would it be forced to try to find it’s own niche?

In my opinion, altering living species like this, granting them only a physical resemblance to an extinct species, does more harm than good.

However, as I said, I think the technology has merit. I think it could be a tool to help current conservation efforts. Couldn’t it be used to help maintain genetic diversity in species with critically low population?

What about truly bringing back extinct species, as the company states as their goal? That concept comes with it’s own host of ethical concerns. I think the biggest one is about how long the species has been extinct. To use their Moa example, is 600 years recent enough that their reintroduction would be a boon to the ecosystem, or has the area adapted to their loss so that it would be like introducing an invasive species? How would the current environment compare to when they were around? Would they even have what they need to survive? How long is too long?

2

waste of money they could be spending on protecting extant animals from extinction by preventing habitat loss etc.

3

They used artificial egg shells in Jurassic Park…

4

Here’s a related thread:

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/dire-wolf-what-do-we-think/63730

5

I think that that argument that

“We genetically engineered Sp. y to have a few traits of Sp. x” = “We deextincted Sp. x!”

is weak.

There’s probably less concern that the species will run amok and take over (a la Jurassic Park) since they are not really very novel to current ecosystems. But there would be concern that they might interbreed with their actual species (i.e., Sp. y) and pass on some genes to them that they shouldn’t have, thereby polluting the Sp. y gene pool.

6

I think the animals thus created would end up nothing more than a curiosity for zoos, and perhaps give the public a dangerous false perception that extinction isn’t forever.

Hypothetically, if actual extinct species could ever be brought back, without borrowing DNA from living species, and with enough genetic diversity to create a viable breeding population that could survive in the wild. . . I would still think the money would be better spent on making sure there is enough “wild” left for species that haven’t yet gone extinct to survive in.

However, I wouldn’t be totally against bringing back any animal humans played a role in driving to extinction. As in, I don’t think it’s where environmentalist organizations should spend their limited resources and it is not a cause I would donate to, but if it was funded by a billionaire, it would be their money to waste and not the worst pet project I had heard of.

7

An increasing number of cities in the US are realizing that the most cost effective way to reduce homelessness is to help people at risk of becoming homeless. Similarly, as you’ve said, it is far more cost effective to prevent extinction than to try to resurrect extinct species.

I have nothing kind to say about Colossal Biosciences and others trying to de-extinct species. The main point is to gather attention and thereby funding. The secondary point is to show off what they can do with all their expensive toys. There is no third point.

8

This is the case with many, many things, and yet, prevention is the one that is first on the chopping block. :expressionless_face:

9

I agree that the money and effort would be better spent on conserving what is left. It is irresponsible to bring back more when we’re doing such a bad job of taking care of what we have.