At the 2013 TEDx De-extinction conference in Washington, DC, Hank Greely, a law professor at Stanford University, asked a straightforward question that went as follows: “Is de-extinction an act of hubris or a source of hope?” To some chuckles, he responded with just one word: “Yes.”
The talk by Greely, available on YouTube, has been on my mind extensively ever since Colossal, a US biotech startup, declared on August 16th that it would be funding an immensely ambitious research initiative to revive the thylacine, also known as the Tasmanian tiger. This marsupial, resembling a dog and indigenous to Australia, was hunted to extinction during the early 1900s. Numerous scientists are of the belief that with the genetic engineering tools and bioinformatics processing power available today, it is conceivable to resurrect it, or a similar creature, back to life.
Nearly 10 years after Greely’s lecture, the concept of de-extinction continues to be a topic of heated controversy and debate. With the recent thylacine resurrection announcement serving as evidence, it may be even more divisive and disputed today, given the exacerbated issues of climate change, pollution, and the overall biodiversity crisis. These challenges raise important questions regarding the scientific endeavors that should be prioritized.
And then there are individuals who hold the opinion that de-extinction is nothing but a show, an unethical and misguided trick. They allege that the scientists engaged in such endeavors are merely seeking “media attention” and label the project as unfeasible. They argue that extinction is a permanent event and cannot be reversed.
They are correct that extinction is permanent. The term “de-extinction” implies that we can reverse the process of extinction, but it is inaccurate and lacks complexity. Even within the scientific community, there is no consensus on the definition of de-extinction.
In 2016, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature created guidelines for reviving extinct species, emphasizing that none of the methods used to achieve de-extinction could ever completely recreate the original species. The guidelines did not even use the term “de-extinction” in the title, but instead focused on creating proxies of extinct species for conservation purposes. The IUCN suggested that using the term “proxy” was a more appropriate way to describe the resurrected species. It is impossible to reverse extinction.
The projects of Colossal, which possess ample funding, align with this idea, despite their marketing implying otherwise, as they aim to revive the thylacine and the woolly mammoth. However, it’s worth noting that creating an exact genetic replica of these ancient creatures is beyond their capability, along with the efforts of Revive & Restore to resurrect the passenger pigeon. With current knowledge, it’s impossible to manipulate DNA to revive the behavioral and physiological characteristics of a species, including its microbiome.
The concept of “de-extinction” implies that we can reverse the effects of extinction, but this simplistic term lacks nuance and is subject to debate among scientists. Nonetheless, there have been significant advancements in DNA technology and it is possible that in the future, a “proxy” species resembling extinct creatures like the thylacine or mammoth may be created. Colossal, a research team at the University of Melbourne, estimates that this could happen within a decade for the thylacine and even sooner for the mammoth. While the technical challenges remain, these timelines may not be entirely impossible.
Colossal aims to release thylacine-like marsupials in Tasmania and mammoth hybrids in the Arctic tundra in the future with the purpose of benefiting the ecosystems and the planet. However, there are numerous questions that need to be addressed before achieving this objective.
That’s the reason why I repeatedly refer to Greely’s discourse on “hubris or hope”. He presents the possible advantages and hazards of resurrecting extinct species and accurately predicts that the research will not be supported by governments or research grants, but financed by private enterprises and philanthropists. As this prediction has now become a reality, I am inclined to believe that Greely has a credible insight.
Following the announcement of the thylacine project on Tuesday, I inquired of Greely whether there were any aspects of his previous discourse from almost a decade prior that he would modify. In response, he stated, “I believe that we are generally progressing towards the destination I had anticipated and desired – the pursuit of de-extinction as a form of ‘luxury’ scientific research, independent of government financing and unfettered by alarmism, but guided by caution.”
In my opinion, he is largely accurate, but lately, there appears to be a tinge of exaggerated anxiety in the discourse. The prevailing contention against de-extinction, as per my observation since Colossal’s statement, is that scientists are expending resources and effort on resurrecting extinct species while we’re in the midst of a biodiversity emergency, and wiping out creatures at an unparalleled pace. This is probably intensified by the ongoing havoc caused by climate change on all living beings on the globe.
A prevalent argument suggests that extinction is no longer relevant if we possess the technology to revive extinct species, known as “de-extinction.” However, this argument poses a tricky moral quandary, and de-extinction should not diminish the importance of preventing extinction. Even if it did, would it be wise to cease researching the methods necessary to revive species? Should we altogether halt funding for these projects?
I compare this to the solar geoengineering trials that may reduce the sun’s brightness through aerosols. Scientists are reluctant to carry out such procedures, but what if the situation deteriorates to the point where we have no choice? Shouldn’t we, at the very least, conduct initial research and scientific experiments to determine it? Scopex, one of the most well-known solar geoengineering experiments, faced criticism for not adequately involving the public in the experiment it intended to carry out. Consequently, it initiated a “comprehensive and inclusive” engagement campaign with the public.
The dialogue regarding de-extinction must initiate as well. Prior to experiencing the joy of cradling a baby thylacine, any de-extinction initiative must engage in discussions with all crucial parties including the general public, other experts in the field, industry, and government, to determine the exact execution process of such a project.
If de-extinction researchers are genuine in their belief that they can resurrect creatures like the thylacine, which walks, runs, and has a peculiar way of opening its jaw, then it is essential to determine where and how these creatures would be reintroduced into the world. It is also crucial to assess whether the general public would even agree with such a reintroduction. Projects like those being undertaken by Colossal must engage in conversations with Native communities who own the land where these species might be reintroduced, whether it be a pack of thylacines or elephant-mammoth hybrids. The researchers must consider how bringing these creatures into the contemporary world, which is vastly different from their ancestral realm, would subject them to pain and suffering. They must also assess the environmental impact of their actions and the ecosystems they will modify, as well as communicate the uncertainties and risks involved in the process.
We must consider both the risks and benefits, as Greely did, and make an individual assessment. As for the final decision, I defer once more to the professor who, concluding his TEDx talk in 2013, stated, “I am but one opinion. It is not my decision to make, it is yours.”
Aug 21 update: Clarified edits regarding the restoration of species to their past state.
