I've long thought that, even if possible, de-extinction woul be a bad idea. The environments those animals lived in don't exist any more; at best they'd be zoo specimens. And your point about social structures and nurture are spot on. It's plain cruelty.
I was going to make the same observation. Plus, an animal created anew wouldn’t have evolved to tolerate the toxins in a world completely new to them. This kind of frivolous experimentation on animals should be illegal and universally condemned. It IS cruel.
The main scientists has just put out a video about the dire wolves claiming de-extinction is necessary to "restore biological function" or some other nonsense like that, knowing damn well that the animals that dire wolves hunted are long extinct. Oh, and they're extinct because of humans, a fact that she has continuously tip-toed around or minimized for the sake of political correctness.
This is nothing more than Genetic Theatre. Its the molecular version of when Ringling Bros. surgically modified goats to make "unicorns" for a circus act.
If it makes you feel any better, I am also quite cross about this.
I’m pissed by the dishonesty of the scientists doing this work and doubly so by other scientists and writers being dishonest about the dishonesty. How can scientists of all people still not comprehend the tremendous damage they do to public trust in (and support of) science and the scientific method by advancing preposterous claims and dubious justifications for them? Like we’re not already at a dangerous inflection point for public trust in institutions. And how can so much of the public not understand the basics of genetics and biology so as to fall prey to this type of nonsense? Oh, wait. Yeah, this is how.
Thanks for addressing the inherent cruelty in bringing supremely social creatures into the world without their familial packs, i.e. how wolves learn to be wolves. The ethics are repellent. And to what end? Wolves in the lower 48 have and will always have targets on their backs. Even in best case scenarios in states like ours with every effort thrown at prevention both by affected ranchers and wildlife agencies and ranchers reimbursed for predation—wolves lives are ever tenuous.
But sure, screw around with vanity projects misleading the public and bring animals into the world with no hope of a good life while doing eff all for actual wolves who despite everything have not yet been wiped off the face of the earth and still manage to hold on to life, pack by pack, season to season, and state line to state line.
I cannot express my disgust with this industry and its purveyors in strong enough terms. They devalue everything. Science, trust, the spirit of inquiry, life itself.
The lead scientist in this effort has literally published papers talking about how terrible the Holocene climate was/is for woolly mammoths, and still insists on reviving a woolly mammoth proxy.
She has also put out a video just now about the dire wolves saying de-extinction is necessary to "restore biological function" or some other nonsense like that, knowing damn well that the animals that dire wolves hunted are long extinct. Oh, and they're extinct because of humans, a fact that she has continuously tip-toed around or minimized for the sake of political correctness.
High on her own supply is a term that pops to mind here. Medicalization of absolutely everything and the fixing of problems that do not exist to the detriment of problems that do. So much distraction. The wreckage of which will be borne by the animals experimented upon. It is indeed soulless.
i’m as disturbed by the idea that U.S. versions of books have to be edited because americans are too fucking stupid to understand spelling differences between this shitty country and EVERY OTHER ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRY.
I questioned the motivation for this, having just watched “Jurassic Park” for the sixth time maybe. I quoted the Jeff Goldblum character asking to what end? Why? All I could picture was the Trump sons hunting these creatures to make trophies out of them.
Yep. 100% agree. Having seen the utter bilge being written about this, I too am exceedingly ‘tasked’ by such unscientific dingo’s kidneys. Having apparently managed to copy a couple of gene expressions of the Dire Wolf - being white and having a bigger head - into a another species that's enough to call it a Dire Wolf? Give. Me. A. Break. Yet apparently you can have Chihuahua and a Newfoundland and they are the same species. Hype and BS in extreme quantities.
Awesome writing, and incredibly good points. As an engineer who loves science & fancies myself somewhat literate, I suspect that people are clinging to this de-extinction bullshit as a way to have *some* "good news." I'm not sure I think de-extinction is good, and if it must be done, I'd far prefer passenger pigeons over dire wolves or mammoths. Re "La Brea Tar Pits," the LA basin is awash in such double-butchered titles.
As a resident of Colorado where wolves are being reintroduced and ranchers are angry about their losses (even though they get compensated by the state) this endeavor is a fool’s folly. What Coloradans have done is put a target on every wolf’s back. In creating a white wolf they might as well genetically modify until they have red targets “painted” all over them. Furthermore, if a wolf (white or otherwise) should wander into neighboring Wyoming in certain areas they can legally be run down by people on snowmobiles and if found guilty of torture pay a mere $250 fine.
These genetically modified formerly extinct animals
w/o family packs as pointed out cannot exist in the wild and will become “exhibits” for humans. Just because you can do something—doesn’t mean you should.
The earth and universe will be a much better place when humans become extinct because we are too stupid to live.
They won’t. The humans too stupid to live just back themselves into a corner they can’t get out of. Extinction complete. Ask any ER staffer. There may, however, be outliers that escape extinction because they are adaptable and open to the possibilities presented.
My understanding was that the 14 gene edits covered all of the genetic differences between dire wolves and grey wolves. Clearly you dispute this, and I'll defer to you because I know so little about the topic of gene editing. However, my broader question is this: If, say, through the use of AI, we could track down every last one of the differences throughout the genomes of two related species and edit all of the differing genes in the nonextinct species to match up with those of the extinct one, wouldn't this count as a legit de-extinction? Not a slightly more dire wolf-like grey wolf, in this hypothetical, but an animal genetically indistinguishable from an actual dire wolf? Can the thing be done, either now or eventually?
I take no real position on whether or not such a thing SHOULD be done, though my gut tells me probably not in most instances. Perhaps with creatures like dodos or passenger pigeons or thylacines that were wiped out by us, and fairly recently, but certainly not animals that thrived in environments that are no longer available to them.
Sure, you could conceivably start with Where the Red Fern Grows and change every letter that doesn't match until you end up with Cujo. That part of the question makes too much sense for you not to know better about the rest.
The grey wolf and dire wolf might look roughly similar but that doesn't mean that apart from the handful of genes coding for size, the remaining billions of base pairs are a match. They have evolved independently for 6 million years, spanning cycle after cumulative cycle of mutation, selection, isolation, and adaptation—millions upon millions of times over. Morphological resemblance is absolutely useless as an indicator of base pair correspondence between species.
So by now know the answer: absolutely not. It is not within the realm of possibility that thousands of non-linked phenotypic sequelae that directly influence survivability—thereby disadvantaging genomes that are not well-adapted to changing conditions—could conceivably remain conserved for 6 million years from the point the grey wolf lineage diverged from that of the dire wolf.
Even less likely is that any two species occupying dissimilar niches could experience identically convergent evolution in sequences affecting oxygenation, low-light vision, disease resistance, enzymatic diversity, resting temperature, caloric requirements, birth interval, territoriality, pair bonding, or any of thousands of attributes that are linked to habitat and can be highly variable between species that are much, much more closely related.
Environmental activism has focused on “umbrella species”, the large popular animals that depend on habitat with thriving ecosystem. To protect the umbrella species you must protect the ecosystem. Protecting the ecosystem preserves biodiversity and the services that ecosystems provide to human populations.
So one damaging use case for, as you say bogus, de-extinction technology, would be as follows:
1. A corporation wishes to do a thing that will devastate an eco-system.
2. The corporation announces it will pay for collection of the genomes of the local iconic species so they can be de-extincted later.
3. Government recognises that action as sufficient environmental mitigation.
The result would be the genomes of a few animals saved to a database, with no real way to bring them back, and the loss of the entire ecosystem that supported that animal in the wild.
The pseudo-science is really irritating. But the way the story is told, and the way it links to ideas about disruption and innovation and digitisation and AI could turn out to be quite dangerous.
Thank you so much for this scientifically responsible and accurate post. The enthusiastic stories from mainstream media, including American and Canadian TV networks reflect the degree of scientific illiteracy among most journalists. This makes them prey for any venture capitalist scammer who has figured out how to monetize a hoax on a gullible public! TV weather reporters are called "meteorologists" and business reporters are called "financial analysts". No wonder expertise and professionalism are downgraded, even degraded, in our society!!
I've long thought that, even if possible, de-extinction woul be a bad idea. The environments those animals lived in don't exist any more; at best they'd be zoo specimens. And your point about social structures and nurture are spot on. It's plain cruelty.
I was going to make the same observation. Plus, an animal created anew wouldn’t have evolved to tolerate the toxins in a world completely new to them. This kind of frivolous experimentation on animals should be illegal and universally condemned. It IS cruel.
The main scientists has just put out a video about the dire wolves claiming de-extinction is necessary to "restore biological function" or some other nonsense like that, knowing damn well that the animals that dire wolves hunted are long extinct. Oh, and they're extinct because of humans, a fact that she has continuously tip-toed around or minimized for the sake of political correctness.
This is nothing more than Genetic Theatre. Its the molecular version of when Ringling Bros. surgically modified goats to make "unicorns" for a circus act.
Paging Dr. Mengele!
"Science and technology are what we can do; morality is what we agree we should or should not do." -- E.O. Wilson
Great writing, Adam. You raise the rant (shitting upon an idea from a great height) to high art! 👏
If it makes you feel any better, I am also quite cross about this.
I’m pissed by the dishonesty of the scientists doing this work and doubly so by other scientists and writers being dishonest about the dishonesty. How can scientists of all people still not comprehend the tremendous damage they do to public trust in (and support of) science and the scientific method by advancing preposterous claims and dubious justifications for them? Like we’re not already at a dangerous inflection point for public trust in institutions. And how can so much of the public not understand the basics of genetics and biology so as to fall prey to this type of nonsense? Oh, wait. Yeah, this is how.
Thanks for addressing the inherent cruelty in bringing supremely social creatures into the world without their familial packs, i.e. how wolves learn to be wolves. The ethics are repellent. And to what end? Wolves in the lower 48 have and will always have targets on their backs. Even in best case scenarios in states like ours with every effort thrown at prevention both by affected ranchers and wildlife agencies and ranchers reimbursed for predation—wolves lives are ever tenuous.
But sure, screw around with vanity projects misleading the public and bring animals into the world with no hope of a good life while doing eff all for actual wolves who despite everything have not yet been wiped off the face of the earth and still manage to hold on to life, pack by pack, season to season, and state line to state line.
I cannot express my disgust with this industry and its purveyors in strong enough terms. They devalue everything. Science, trust, the spirit of inquiry, life itself.
The lead scientist in this effort has literally published papers talking about how terrible the Holocene climate was/is for woolly mammoths, and still insists on reviving a woolly mammoth proxy.
She has also put out a video just now about the dire wolves saying de-extinction is necessary to "restore biological function" or some other nonsense like that, knowing damn well that the animals that dire wolves hunted are long extinct. Oh, and they're extinct because of humans, a fact that she has continuously tip-toed around or minimized for the sake of political correctness.
Soulless.
High on her own supply is a term that pops to mind here. Medicalization of absolutely everything and the fixing of problems that do not exist to the detriment of problems that do. So much distraction. The wreckage of which will be borne by the animals experimented upon. It is indeed soulless.
i’m as disturbed by the idea that U.S. versions of books have to be edited because americans are too fucking stupid to understand spelling differences between this shitty country and EVERY OTHER ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRY.
jfc.
I questioned the motivation for this, having just watched “Jurassic Park” for the sixth time maybe. I quoted the Jeff Goldblum character asking to what end? Why? All I could picture was the Trump sons hunting these creatures to make trophies out of them.
Yep. 100% agree. Having seen the utter bilge being written about this, I too am exceedingly ‘tasked’ by such unscientific dingo’s kidneys. Having apparently managed to copy a couple of gene expressions of the Dire Wolf - being white and having a bigger head - into a another species that's enough to call it a Dire Wolf? Give. Me. A. Break. Yet apparently you can have Chihuahua and a Newfoundland and they are the same species. Hype and BS in extreme quantities.
If being white and having a big head suffices as “dire,” can we start calling the rocket guy “Dire Musk?”
Dire Musk … sounds like a particularly revolting aftershave or possibly eau de toilette may be more appropriate . . .
"Put a tail on it and CALL a weasel" Black Adder
I’m surprised Zimmer bought into the hype: he’s better than that
He isn't.
Awesome writing, and incredibly good points. As an engineer who loves science & fancies myself somewhat literate, I suspect that people are clinging to this de-extinction bullshit as a way to have *some* "good news." I'm not sure I think de-extinction is good, and if it must be done, I'd far prefer passenger pigeons over dire wolves or mammoths. Re "La Brea Tar Pits," the LA basin is awash in such double-butchered titles.
As a resident of Colorado where wolves are being reintroduced and ranchers are angry about their losses (even though they get compensated by the state) this endeavor is a fool’s folly. What Coloradans have done is put a target on every wolf’s back. In creating a white wolf they might as well genetically modify until they have red targets “painted” all over them. Furthermore, if a wolf (white or otherwise) should wander into neighboring Wyoming in certain areas they can legally be run down by people on snowmobiles and if found guilty of torture pay a mere $250 fine.
These genetically modified formerly extinct animals
w/o family packs as pointed out cannot exist in the wild and will become “exhibits” for humans. Just because you can do something—doesn’t mean you should.
The earth and universe will be a much better place when humans become extinct because we are too stupid to live.
When would a species that is too stupid to live, figure out that it is too stupid to live?
They won’t. The humans too stupid to live just back themselves into a corner they can’t get out of. Extinction complete. Ask any ER staffer. There may, however, be outliers that escape extinction because they are adaptable and open to the possibilities presented.
If we are going to talk about the la brea tar pits do we need to talk about torpenhow Hill 💀
And Lake Windermere
And Table Mesa
My understanding was that the 14 gene edits covered all of the genetic differences between dire wolves and grey wolves. Clearly you dispute this, and I'll defer to you because I know so little about the topic of gene editing. However, my broader question is this: If, say, through the use of AI, we could track down every last one of the differences throughout the genomes of two related species and edit all of the differing genes in the nonextinct species to match up with those of the extinct one, wouldn't this count as a legit de-extinction? Not a slightly more dire wolf-like grey wolf, in this hypothetical, but an animal genetically indistinguishable from an actual dire wolf? Can the thing be done, either now or eventually?
I take no real position on whether or not such a thing SHOULD be done, though my gut tells me probably not in most instances. Perhaps with creatures like dodos or passenger pigeons or thylacines that were wiped out by us, and fairly recently, but certainly not animals that thrived in environments that are no longer available to them.
Sure, you could conceivably start with Where the Red Fern Grows and change every letter that doesn't match until you end up with Cujo. That part of the question makes too much sense for you not to know better about the rest.
The grey wolf and dire wolf might look roughly similar but that doesn't mean that apart from the handful of genes coding for size, the remaining billions of base pairs are a match. They have evolved independently for 6 million years, spanning cycle after cumulative cycle of mutation, selection, isolation, and adaptation—millions upon millions of times over. Morphological resemblance is absolutely useless as an indicator of base pair correspondence between species.
So by now know the answer: absolutely not. It is not within the realm of possibility that thousands of non-linked phenotypic sequelae that directly influence survivability—thereby disadvantaging genomes that are not well-adapted to changing conditions—could conceivably remain conserved for 6 million years from the point the grey wolf lineage diverged from that of the dire wolf.
Even less likely is that any two species occupying dissimilar niches could experience identically convergent evolution in sequences affecting oxygenation, low-light vision, disease resistance, enzymatic diversity, resting temperature, caloric requirements, birth interval, territoriality, pair bonding, or any of thousands of attributes that are linked to habitat and can be highly variable between species that are much, much more closely related.
Environmental activism has focused on “umbrella species”, the large popular animals that depend on habitat with thriving ecosystem. To protect the umbrella species you must protect the ecosystem. Protecting the ecosystem preserves biodiversity and the services that ecosystems provide to human populations.
So one damaging use case for, as you say bogus, de-extinction technology, would be as follows:
1. A corporation wishes to do a thing that will devastate an eco-system.
2. The corporation announces it will pay for collection of the genomes of the local iconic species so they can be de-extincted later.
3. Government recognises that action as sufficient environmental mitigation.
The result would be the genomes of a few animals saved to a database, with no real way to bring them back, and the loss of the entire ecosystem that supported that animal in the wild.
The pseudo-science is really irritating. But the way the story is told, and the way it links to ideas about disruption and innovation and digitisation and AI could turn out to be quite dangerous.
How could one claim a patent on the “Dire Wolf Genome” if the finding of 20 co-occurring point mutations could be stochastic?
Thank you so much for this scientifically responsible and accurate post. The enthusiastic stories from mainstream media, including American and Canadian TV networks reflect the degree of scientific illiteracy among most journalists. This makes them prey for any venture capitalist scammer who has figured out how to monetize a hoax on a gullible public! TV weather reporters are called "meteorologists" and business reporters are called "financial analysts". No wonder expertise and professionalism are downgraded, even degraded, in our society!!