An overseas company has announced plans to “bring back” the South Island giant moa.
Colossal Biosciences, working with Ngāi Tahu Research Centre and Canterbury Museum, says it expects to “resurrect” the moa within five to eight years, aiming to release the animal into “expansive, secure ecological reserves.”
Their team are extracting and assembling DNA from moa remains and looking at related South American species to potentially use as donor animals.
In April, Colossal announced its “de-extinction” of dire wolves. Its chief scientist later told New Scientist they are “grey wolves with 20 edits that are cloned.”
The SMC asked experts to comment. Previous third-party expert comments on the dire wolf story are available here.
Associate Professor Phillip Wilcox (Ngāti Rakaipaaka, Rongomaiwahine, Ngāti Kahungunu ki te Wairoa), Kaiawhina Māori, Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics; Kaikōkiri Māori, Genetics Teaching Programme; Affiliate of the Bioethics Centre (Te Pokapū Matatika Koiora), University of Otago, comments:
“While at first glance the project appears exciting and is very slickly promoted, there are many uncertainties surrounding it. For example, based on our recent research, wider support from iwi members – and other tribal groups – is not guaranteed: it remains to be seen if these artificial facsimiles of moa that do not have a whakapapa relationship with Māori will be accepted as taonga.
“Moreover, based on the size of the financial investments indicated in the media, the project may not deliver on it’s primary goals within the stated timeframes. Multiple prior experiences with implementing new biotechnologies show that these frequently cost more money, time and effort than initially thought. There are often barriers unforeseen at the beginning of a project, that require additional investment to deliver on primary goals.
“There are also uncertainties around who will generate the data, and who will have access to that information. Because at least some of these species occurred outside the contemporary Ngai Tahu tribal boundaries, other Māori communities also have interests that should be acknowledged. Their support of this project is also uncertain.
“What is reasonably certain however, is that this initiative will not deliver emancipatory outcomes for nga iwi katoa. Māori communities face numerous challenges and issues that such a project will not meaningfully address. A fuller, more thorough evaluation of this initiative is required to more clearly determine who will benefit – and who won’t.”
No conflicts of interest.
Professor Emeritus Philip Seddon, Department of Zoology, University of Otago, comments:
“Extinction really is forever. There is no current genetic engineering pathway that can truly restore a lost species, especially one missing from its ecological and evolutionary context for hundreds of years.
“Despite Colossal Biosciences’ eventual reframing of dire wolf de-extinction as actually creating an ecological replacement using a genetically modified grey wolf, there is no hint in their recent press release that the best we can hope for is an ecological replacement for a New Zealand moa.
“Details are missing but with the generous 5 to 10 year time frame they have given themselves enough leeway to drip feed news of genetically modifying some near relative of the moa. Any end result will not, cannot be, a moa – a unique treasure created through millenia of adaptation and change. Moa are extinct. Genetic tinkering with the fundamental features of a different life force will not bring moa back.”
Conflict of interest statement: Phil is an Emeritus Professor of Zoology at the University of Otago. He has published on the bioethics and ecology of de-extinction and was the chair of an IUCN (World Conservation Union) Working Group that devised guiding principles on de-extinction for conservation.
Aroha Te Pareake Mead (Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Porou), member of the IUCN Policy Development Working Group on the use of Synthetic Biology in Conservation, comments:
“De-extinction is a misnomer, a false promise, that is rooted more in ego than a genuine effort to conserve species. These are exercises in the egotistical delight in the theatrical production of ‘discovery’ devoid of ethical, environmental and cultural considerations. Bring the moa back? To where? To what quality of life? To roam freely?
“”Bringing a species back” requires the use of a proxy species to be the host, and hence, what is created is a hybrid. IUCN, the world’s largest conservation organisation, issued Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit. The Guidelines clarify that hybrids are not generally assessed as pure species on the IUCN Red List.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Karaitiana Taiuru (Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Toa), Director of the Indigenous Genomics Institute, comments:
“The Moa is a Taonga Species to Māori who have significant whakapapa to the Moa.
“In the South Island at least, mātauranga Māori tells us that the Moa were clumsy and often died in crevasses in the land and with broken legs, not through being eaten en mass. So, this is an opportunity for the local hapū to use modern day sciences to revive a lost and important part of their culture on their land. It is also likely to create future new commercial opportunities, perhaps addressing food sovereignty issues.”
Conflicts of interest: A descendant of Ngāi Tahu/Ngāi Tuahuriri.
Professor Tammy Steeves, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, comments:
“Colossal—a 10-billion dollar biotechnology company that seeks to combine “the science of genetics with the business of discovery”—has announced plans to “resurrect” the South Island giant moa.
“In their recent announcement about “resurrecting” dire wolves, Colossal was quick to highlight their end goal: to use the “de-extinction” technologies developed to “resurrect species”, like the dire wolf, to save living species from the brink of extinction, like the red wolf.
“Tucked quietly into their messaging were hints at ambitions to do the same here in Aotearoa.
“We can now anticipate a ramp up in debates over the use of de-extinction technologies to save endangered bird species.
“We can draw fodder from Colossal’s plans to restore lost genetic diversity in the pink pigeon alongside plans to de-extinct the dodo. Both species are endemic to Mauritius.
“There is no straight line from ‘de-extinction’ to saving endangered species. Applying these technologies to conservation raises numerous complex questions that demand diverse perspectives and forms of knowledge, especially here in Aotearoa New Zealand.
“Beyond the ethical, legal, political, and economic issues raised by using de-extinction technologies in conservation, the scientific challenges are immense.
“For example, to de-extinct the dire wolf, the team at Colossal focused exclusively on morphological traits controlled by a few genes of large effect. In other words, they targeted “big impact” genes, none of which are related to improving traits associated with reproduction and survival.
“Recovering small, inbred populations would require targeting multiple traits associated with reproduction and survival, most of which are likely to be controlled by many genes, each of small effect. Such “small impact” genes are notoriously hard to find, especially in endangered species.
“Even if the genes associated with reproduction and survival could be found and could be edited in a relatively large number of individuals, without rapid population growth, the risk of losing these gene edits in subsequent generations would be high.
“In short, if it sounds too good to be true, it likely is.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Tammy Steeves is a Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha | University of Canterbury Professor based in the School of Biological Sciences. Her research focuses on the ecological and evolutionary processes that contribute to the formation and maintenance of species boundaries, and the application of this knowledge to enhance the recovery of species at risk. Her interdisciplinary team is world-renowned for integrating genomic and non-genomic data to develop culturally responsive conservation genetic management strategies for some of Aotearoa New Zealand’s rarest species.”
Associate Professor Nic Rawlence, Director – Otago Palaeogenetics Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Otago, comments:
On engagement with tangata whenua
“I’m shocked by this announcement, bluntly, given my research group has been working with tangata whenua, iwi, hapū, rūnanga, and trusts around the motu for over 10 years, and there is very little support for de-extinction of New Zealand species for many reasons.
“One, there’s no habitat left. It’s largely been destroyed through environmental modification. If you do bring a species back, you need to bring back enough individuals that they are not inbred like the English royal family or the Habsburg dynasty. If you bring back animals, they are going to require conservation. Who’s going to conserve them? Who’s going to provide tangata whenua with the money to conserve them so we don’t create opportunity costs? That’s where money gets pulled from one area to conserve the de-extinct moa, and it could result in less money to conserve some of our other really endangered species that could result in their extinction.
“There are also [longstanding] major concerns with tangata whenua around the country around not being involved in discussions around genetic engineering, not being Māori led, but also around samples: bone samples, DNA going offshore. Who owns that DNA? [There are] concerns around intellectual property rights, monetary IP, and this not being another example of colonialism. There are all of those concerns that have been floating around, such that whenever we have done engagement – and I can say I’m involved in a project that is sequencing the genomes of moa in New Zealand – that in our conversations, there has been no support for de-extinction. And tangata whenua want the DNA to stay in New Zealand, and all the sequence data to stay in New Zealand, and don’t want de-extinction.
“So, with this announcement, it’s encouraging to see that the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre is front and centre with these discussions. And if you actually look at the really big, long press release, it’s encouraging to see that there are discussions around the need to restore the habitat, what used to be there, because you can’t bring something back if you don’t have the habitat.
“But one of the concerns I’ve got is de-extinction has always been talked about for conservation purposes, and you read the press releases, and you watch what’s on the media this morning, and the moa will be brought back and put in a game reserve for ecotourism purposes, and not released in the wild. I see no point in that at all. It’s undeniable that this technology will and could have real benefits to conservation of New Zealand’s endangered species. Let’s say, for example, we know we can genetically engineer a kākāpō so it’s resistant to a disease, but we shouldn’t be bringing back species to undo, as Ben Lamm said on Breakfast TV this morning, ‘the sins of the past.’ That means we’re not learning from extinction.
“The Trump government said they wanted to do away with Endangered Species List because there was de-extinction. I could see the New Zealand government wanting to do the same, given if an endangered species gets in the way of development, then development wins.
“One of my major concerns is actually, given all of the concerns of tangata whenua around the motu, is the engagement that Colossal has done. Ngāi Tahu is a very large iwi with lots of individual rūnanga, similar to say, Ngāpuhi, with lots of different hapū. And in my research team’s engagement, we have dealt with individual rūnanga as locally as humanly possible. I’m calling on Colossal and Canterbury Museum and the Ngāi Tahu Research Center to ask: how wide have they done their engagement across Ngāi Tahu, across all the different rūnanga, across iwi in the South Island? Have they got free, prior, and informed consent across all the rūnanga? Have they listened to all of the views, or have they made a captain’s call because it looks like support has been cherry picked? Because I know there are individual Ngai Tahu runanga who are against de-extinction. The iwi at the top of the South Island are against the de-extinction of the giant moa (or any moa), which also occurred in their rohe (it’s not just in Ngai Tahu rohe). If you are going to de-extinct a giant moa or do something this big, we really need a South Island-wide or a national consensus before we go forward.”
On candidates for interspecies surrogacy
“The moa is most closely related to a small flying bird called the tinamou in South America. Now, to get to the common ancestor of the moa and tinamou, you’d have to go back 60 million years of evolution. So genetically engineering a tinamou might be quite hard. You could genetically engineer an emu, but you’re not going to recreate a moa. You’re going to recreate something that may look like a moa, but we don’t know whether it’s even going to function like a moa in the ecosystem. So, for Paul Scofield and Canterbury Museum to say that this is an unprecedented opportunity to see how a moa functions in the environment, I don’t see it as that at all. There are no living analogs of moa at all amongst the ratites, like the emu, the cassowary, the rhea, so I don’t see a genetically engineered ratite being an analog of a moa.
“What Colossal did with the dire wolf was probably the easy part compared to what they want to try and do with the moa. They think, in five to 10 years, that they will be gifting a baby moa to Ngāi Tahu. I think that’s a pipe dream.”
Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts. Nic is involved in a NZ-based project to sequence moa genomes.