Woolly mammoths may be coming back by 2028. The dodo could plausibly follow. But how does "de-extinction" work? And is it wise for humanity to try to bring species back that have been lost to history?
I am all for changing the status quo when the status quo has us with grotesque inequity and ruining life support system from pretending that we are separate from nature-masters of nature. Just because we can do something does not mean we should do it. Greta Thunberg and climate scientists and the likes of Bill McKibben George Monbiot (Regenesis) and our indigenous peoples could tell us of thousands of practical technologies that could restore balance. Proven techniques and technologies that don't have us playing master of the universe but being respectful and restorative. There are so many better ways to change the status quo than De-extinction projects. My guess is that the scientist's first instinct was correct but then her status-her funding would be improved greatly if she could do this. Just because we can do something does not mean that we should goes out the window when status- prestige comes into the picture which drives us to do so much. Novelty-magical solutions over first applying what we know wisely works rules the day. Applying what we know wisely widely Bill McKibben and Monbiot would tell you would make for radically restorative work. Such work is not so sexy or sensational. It seldom makes the news.
We must keep in mind that life on our planet evolved on many paths over hundreds of thousands of years. Unraveling the roadmaps in any DNA can be tricky because of the unexpected interactions and unanticipated interplay among biological subsystems. Millions of random āFlukesā got us here but we have a long road to understanding their meanings.
I've done a bit of research on the complex dynamics and interactions of and native plant and animal communities in natural areas and their associated pathogens, parasites, beneficials. There was much more to know.
I'm very concerned about the possible de-extinction of any long extinct species without extensive research into their associated microbiomes, both beneficial and antagonistic.
It's quite different to reintroduce an animal like the gray wolf that has been missing only a few decades versus a wooly mammoth that has been gone a few millenia, particularly given that said wooly mammoth will make it's appearance with the materially inherited Asian elephant microbiome, let alone the compliment of maternally inherited organelle compliment.
Color me extremely skeptical without MUCH further research.
Yes, I share your concern. I am less worried about a ātest mammothā but it they do plan to ramp up to proper herds, it needs to be so carefully managedā¦and some of this is still very speculative. As you can probably tell, Iām of two minds about the whole thing.
Up til now, we've mostly gotten away with our enthusiasm for 'playing God': we've made many alterations to the planet we have dominion over. We've been, on occasion, confronted by unexpected consequences, paid some unexpected prices...but, largely, gotten away with it.
(As is the case with a cigarette smoker who doesn't get lung cancer...the non occurence of cancer doesn't prove that smoking was a good thing.)
Itās a fascinating subject, for sure. I knew a bit about Colossal Biosciences and the de-extinction of woolly mammoths from reading/listening to Douglas Preston on his research for his latest book, Extinction (a very fictionalized tale using this technology, wrapped in a murder mystery). I donāt know enough to form a truly informed opinion, but agree 100% on being skeptical where money is involved. Thank you for fleshing out some of the pros and cons. Lots to think about.
Yeah, I donāt have a clear verdict, because this is a complex topic. I also think that genomics is going to advance massively no matter what, so the instinctive aversion to itā¦probably wonāt matter. If thatās the case, the focus needs to be on harnessing for maximum benefit while regulating to mitigate foreseeable harm. Imperfect, but probably the only sensible option at this stageā¦but like so much of the modern world, the technology is rapidly outpacing the regulation.
Brian - Really well-written and thought provoking. As always. Thank you.
I come to Taleb's overview of non-naive precautionary principle often. I know you are a fan too. I have a decent feeling re what he might say about this (I particularly like the idea that the burden of proof re absence of harm should fall on the proponents of the idea).
"The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment
globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety. Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans",
unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence"
Thanks! Yes, but the issue is that we are changing this space through inaction too ā we are embarking on an unwitting great experiment with extinction through our effect on the natural world, and so the question isnāt action vs inaction, I fear. Thatās why this is so tricky. We may need this genomics research even if itās risky, simply because we may be creating larger risks by destroying so much of the natural habitat that species rely upon.
The precautionary principle, even in its non-naive form, does not appear to work well in situations where there there is a slow systemic change driven by very large number of people (like say deforestration among others driving climate change driving extinction of species in all kinds of bad feedback loops).
So then the question becomes how do you fix that:
a) take another techno-enabled punt that could have systemic implications (like genetic engineering or geo-engineering)
b) tinker with solving the effects of climate change by trying to undo what we have done with narrow-domain interventions or tech (like replanting trees or replacing fossil with renewables).
Perhaps there is an in-between in which we try option b) (subject to the precautionary principle) but if it does not work or it does not work fast enough based on some rigorous assessment then we throw caution to the wind and go for a).
There are āextinctā species all over the world; we have āpreservedā examples in various zoos and āpreservesā but the speciesā, as the world knew them, are gone. Their habitats are gone and will never come back. Their āways of lifeā are extinguished since they are not living a natural life and the current generations cannot train their offspring in how to track, hunt, kill, consume environmentally, all of which is lost along with their natural habitats that we are destroying for human intentions. We donāt like to think we have killed them all off,but we have, save a few examples we keep around for entertainment. The fantasy of somehow resurrecting a few more species rescued from their oblivion into our zoos and exhibits to make money and entertain us is absurd, thought thru.
Intriguing. But I have to say, as I contemplated the first pair of mammoths released into the wild, the image that came up was Jr. and Eric kneeling with their guns next to the carcass of one of them.
The novella TUSKS by Ray Nayler is a fantastic imaginative exploration of this possible future scenario, digging deep into the ethics, with a conservation-minded scientist and activist at the center of the story. It also includes a creative approach to the challenge of training offspring that Kenneth outIines that also manages to significantly deepen the stories emotional stakes. I highly recommend it
This is completely fascinating. I think I am in the 'undecided' camp. It sounds exciting and the places it could take science are amazing. But I am inherently skeptical of the likelihood that billionaires will make good and ethical decisions with their newfound playthings.
I am all for changing the status quo when the status quo has us with grotesque inequity and ruining life support system from pretending that we are separate from nature-masters of nature. Just because we can do something does not mean we should do it. Greta Thunberg and climate scientists and the likes of Bill McKibben George Monbiot (Regenesis) and our indigenous peoples could tell us of thousands of practical technologies that could restore balance. Proven techniques and technologies that don't have us playing master of the universe but being respectful and restorative. There are so many better ways to change the status quo than De-extinction projects. My guess is that the scientist's first instinct was correct but then her status-her funding would be improved greatly if she could do this. Just because we can do something does not mean that we should goes out the window when status- prestige comes into the picture which drives us to do so much. Novelty-magical solutions over first applying what we know wisely works rules the day. Applying what we know wisely widely Bill McKibben and Monbiot would tell you would make for radically restorative work. Such work is not so sexy or sensational. It seldom makes the news.
We must keep in mind that life on our planet evolved on many paths over hundreds of thousands of years. Unraveling the roadmaps in any DNA can be tricky because of the unexpected interactions and unanticipated interplay among biological subsystems. Millions of random āFlukesā got us here but we have a long road to understanding their meanings.
I certainly agree with that!
I've done a bit of research on the complex dynamics and interactions of and native plant and animal communities in natural areas and their associated pathogens, parasites, beneficials. There was much more to know.
I'm very concerned about the possible de-extinction of any long extinct species without extensive research into their associated microbiomes, both beneficial and antagonistic.
It's quite different to reintroduce an animal like the gray wolf that has been missing only a few decades versus a wooly mammoth that has been gone a few millenia, particularly given that said wooly mammoth will make it's appearance with the materially inherited Asian elephant microbiome, let alone the compliment of maternally inherited organelle compliment.
Color me extremely skeptical without MUCH further research.
Yes, I share your concern. I am less worried about a ātest mammothā but it they do plan to ramp up to proper herds, it needs to be so carefully managedā¦and some of this is still very speculative. As you can probably tell, Iām of two minds about the whole thing.
I meant to say maternally inherited microbiome rather than materially inherited microbiome, but missed the overenthesiastic autocorrect.
By the way, credit to the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge since that was where I did some of that research.
All I can say is WOW! So many angles to consider - playing God....
Up til now, we've mostly gotten away with our enthusiasm for 'playing God': we've made many alterations to the planet we have dominion over. We've been, on occasion, confronted by unexpected consequences, paid some unexpected prices...but, largely, gotten away with it.
(As is the case with a cigarette smoker who doesn't get lung cancer...the non occurence of cancer doesn't prove that smoking was a good thing.)
Itās a fascinating subject, for sure. I knew a bit about Colossal Biosciences and the de-extinction of woolly mammoths from reading/listening to Douglas Preston on his research for his latest book, Extinction (a very fictionalized tale using this technology, wrapped in a murder mystery). I donāt know enough to form a truly informed opinion, but agree 100% on being skeptical where money is involved. Thank you for fleshing out some of the pros and cons. Lots to think about.
Yeah, I donāt have a clear verdict, because this is a complex topic. I also think that genomics is going to advance massively no matter what, so the instinctive aversion to itā¦probably wonāt matter. If thatās the case, the focus needs to be on harnessing for maximum benefit while regulating to mitigate foreseeable harm. Imperfect, but probably the only sensible option at this stageā¦but like so much of the modern world, the technology is rapidly outpacing the regulation.
Brian - Really well-written and thought provoking. As always. Thank you.
I come to Taleb's overview of non-naive precautionary principle often. I know you are a fan too. I have a decent feeling re what he might say about this (I particularly like the idea that the burden of proof re absence of harm should fall on the proponents of the idea).
"The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment
globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety. Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it. PP is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans",
unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence"
Thanks! Yes, but the issue is that we are changing this space through inaction too ā we are embarking on an unwitting great experiment with extinction through our effect on the natural world, and so the question isnāt action vs inaction, I fear. Thatās why this is so tricky. We may need this genomics research even if itās risky, simply because we may be creating larger risks by destroying so much of the natural habitat that species rely upon.
Upon reflection:
The precautionary principle, even in its non-naive form, does not appear to work well in situations where there there is a slow systemic change driven by very large number of people (like say deforestration among others driving climate change driving extinction of species in all kinds of bad feedback loops).
So then the question becomes how do you fix that:
a) take another techno-enabled punt that could have systemic implications (like genetic engineering or geo-engineering)
b) tinker with solving the effects of climate change by trying to undo what we have done with narrow-domain interventions or tech (like replanting trees or replacing fossil with renewables).
Perhaps there is an in-between in which we try option b) (subject to the precautionary principle) but if it does not work or it does not work fast enough based on some rigorous assessment then we throw caution to the wind and go for a).
There are āextinctā species all over the world; we have āpreservedā examples in various zoos and āpreservesā but the speciesā, as the world knew them, are gone. Their habitats are gone and will never come back. Their āways of lifeā are extinguished since they are not living a natural life and the current generations cannot train their offspring in how to track, hunt, kill, consume environmentally, all of which is lost along with their natural habitats that we are destroying for human intentions. We donāt like to think we have killed them all off,but we have, save a few examples we keep around for entertainment. The fantasy of somehow resurrecting a few more species rescued from their oblivion into our zoos and exhibits to make money and entertain us is absurd, thought thru.
Intriguing. But I have to say, as I contemplated the first pair of mammoths released into the wild, the image that came up was Jr. and Eric kneeling with their guns next to the carcass of one of them.
The novella TUSKS by Ray Nayler is a fantastic imaginative exploration of this possible future scenario, digging deep into the ethics, with a conservation-minded scientist and activist at the center of the story. It also includes a creative approach to the challenge of training offspring that Kenneth outIines that also manages to significantly deepen the stories emotional stakes. I highly recommend it
And I wouldn't be surprised if Beth Shapiro inspired the book's protagonist...
This is completely fascinating. I think I am in the 'undecided' camp. It sounds exciting and the places it could take science are amazing. But I am inherently skeptical of the likelihood that billionaires will make good and ethical decisions with their newfound playthings.
We didnāt think of them as āexperiments,ā but look what the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution did to us ā and the world.
Yes, this is a key point - we are constantly changing the natural world even when itās not a deliberate manipulation.
Just read about the Nobel Prize In Physiology. Another area of caution about using serrogate birthing species.
https://www.genengnews.com/topics/omics/ambros-ruvkun-win-the-nobel-prize-in-physiology-or-medicine-for-micrornas/