Buzz
The recent announcement of reviving the Tasmanian tiger species has sparked widespread concern.
When Hank Greely, a law professor at Stanford University, took the stage at the 2013 TEDx DeExtinction conference in Washington, D.C., he posed a simple question.
'De-extinction of species,' he began. 'Arrogance? Or hope?' The answer, he delivered with a hearty laugh, was 'Both.'
Greely's talk, which you can watch on YouTube, resurfaced when the U.S. biotech startup company Colossal announced on August 16th that they would be funding an extremely ambitious research project aimed at reviving the thylacine species, also known as the Tasmanian tiger.
A newly announced private project aims to revive the Tasmanian tiger - the last individual of which died in 1936.
A marsupial resembling a dog, originating from Australia, was hunted to extinction by the early 1900s. Some scientists believe that today we have the genetic engineering tools and the bioinformatics prowess to bring it - or something akin to it - back from the dead.
Nearly a decade after Greely's talk, the idea of species de-extinction still sparks controversy and lively debate. At this juncture, in the current context, the announcement of resurrecting the Tasmanian tiger is perhaps even more contentious due to issues such as climate change, pollution, and the worsening biodiversity crisis compared to 10 years ago.
Can science truly resurrect species?
According to experts, scientists seem to be split 50-50 on the matter. Some believe it's a worthy pursuit, a goal that will lead to new conservation technologies and enhance our understanding of extant species so we can better protect them.
Then there are those who see species resurrection as merely a spectacle; an unethical advertising ploy, a folly. Some argue that the involved scientists are doing it all for 'media attention' and describe this work as technically unfeasible. They say extinction is forever, and nothing can change that.
They're right. Extinction is forever.
'Species de-extinction' implies that we can reverse extinction. Undo its consequences. But this term is misunderstood. It lacks nuance. And it's even a matter of contention in scientific literature - scientists haven't reached a consensus on what species de-extinction entails.
When the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) developed guidelines on species revival in 2016, the organization specifically noted that no de-extinction method will produce a 'perfect replica.'
We can't reverse extinction. In fact, the IUCN guidance document doesn't even use the term species de-extinction in its title. It's called the 'Guiding principles on creating proxies of extinct species for conservation benefit' and suggests that proxies are a much better way to define the species we will revive.
Scientists intend to use genes from the dunnart - a species closely related with 95% DNA similarity to the Tasmanian tiger - to recreate it.
Both of Colossal's fully funded projects on the Tasmanian tiger and the woolly mammoth adhere to this concept, even if their marketing activities suggest otherwise. The company and its collaborators will not be able to create an exact genetic replica of the long-gone Earth roamers. The similar project at Revive & Restore also doesn't work on reviving the passenger pigeon.
Given humanity's current understanding, it's not possible to restore the behavioral and physiological traits of a species (including things like its microbiome) just by studying its DNA.
However, significant DNA alterations are possible, and this technology is advancing exponentially. It's very likely that scientists will be able to create some 'proxies' - a Tasmanian tiger-like creature, for example, or some hybrids between elephants and woolly mammoths - in the future.
That is, replicas may not be 100%, but they would suffice as a representative proxy species.
The last Tasmanian tiger specimen (colorized photo).
Colossal and its research team at the University of Melbourne believe this could happen within a decade for the Tasmanian tiger, possibly even sooner for the woolly mammoth. Those timelines seem overly optimistic given the technical hurdles still in place, but not impossible.
Colossal's goal is ultimately to release the Tasmanian tiger-like marsupials they create back to Tasmania and the mammoth hybrids into the Arctic tundra. Researchers say this would benefit the ecosystem and the planet. But there are many questions to answer before we reach that milestone.
That's why we need to revisit Greely's 'arrogance or hope' talk. In it, he presents both the hidden risks and the benefits of reintroducing extinct species.
Criticism of 'playing god'
He also mentioned that currently, research will not be funded by governments or research funding bodies. Instead, it will be funded by private sectors and philanthropists.
Following the news of the Tasmanian tiger project breaking out last week, a CNET reporter asked Greely if there's anything he would change in the talk he gave nearly a decade ago. He said: 'I think everything is going as I expected and hoped - Species de-extinction is still a luxurious research project, not government-funded or thrilling, but still needs to be carried out carefully.'
What's the point of de-extinction in the face of climate change?
The most common argument against species de-extinction from Colossal's project is that scientists are wasting money and time trying to revive extinct species while we are living amidst a biodiversity crisis and causing species to go extinct at an unprecedented rate.
Not to mention climate change is still ravaging the planet. What's the point of resurrecting a dead species when the risk of their continued extinction is so high?
Wasteful Spending
Another major argument raised by skeptics is why the scientific community should waste a heap of money, resources, and manpower on a project that's uncertain of its success and when it will be successful.
According to them, that money and resources should be allocated to conserving the million species on the brink of extinction. Reviving an extinct species from centuries, even millennia ago, is it as meaningful to the ecosystem as conserving species critical to the current ecological situation?
No One Cares About Extinction Anymore
Another common argument is that if we have the technology to 'resurrect' species, then extinction isn't that big of a deal anymore - no one fears extinction, so why bother protecting species?
Many threatened species are closer to us than we think.
This is a complex ethical risk. However, this argument still lacks evidence. Even if it's true, should we then just stop advancing in biology?
Questions That Need Answers
CNET likens species de-extinction to geoengineering experiments on the sun: a project that could dim the sunlight on Earth using sulfur gases. Scientists don't want to resort to such measures, but what if things get so bad that we're forced to?
At the very least, humanity should conduct basic research and scientific experiments to anticipate such scenarios.
Perhaps it's time for species de-extinction to be approached similarly.
According to CNET, the real issue that any species de-extinction project should address, before we cuddle a little Tasmanian tiger in our arms, is precisely discussing how such a project will function with all the key stakeholders involved, from the public to scientists and other industries, as well as with local governments.
There are questions that need answering before the joy of resurrecting a species like the Tasmanian tiger truly takes place: Where can these creatures return to the world and how. We need to know if the public wants that.
Do indigenous people support this idea? How might they endure if reintroduced to today's world, a world vastly different from the one their ancestors left behind? Additionally, what risks exist for the ecosystem and the environment?
Ultimately, the survival of a species is not just a game of human 'playing god,' but it involves too many variables for us to be extremely cautious.
Sources: CNET, Yahoo
