Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, posts on X that now that Colossal Biosciences brought back the dire wolf, we don't have to worry about endangered species anymore. We can just bring them back if we drive them to extinction.
Okay, it's settled then!
Well, not quite. Read on, from this article:
And continue at the bottom for some thoughts from me.
"On Monday, April 7, the former North Dakota governor applauded the efforts of the gene-editing technology on X.
"The Department of the Interior is excited about the potential of 'de-extinction' technology and how it may serve broader purposes beyond the recovery of lost species, including strengthening biodiversity protection efforts and helping endangered or at-risk species," read the post."
"According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, there are over 1,300 species listed as endangered or threatened to become extinct in the U.S. under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Burgum, who compared the list to “Hotel California,” stating, “Once a species enters, they never leave,” wants to celebrate the removal of animals from the list with genetic engineering technology, adding that "the status quo is focused on regulation more than innovation."“The only thing we’d like to see go extinct is the need for an endangered species list to exist,” Burgum wrote. “We need to continue improving recovery efforts to make that a reality, and the marvel of ‘de-extinction’ technology can help forge a future where populations are never at risk.” In his post, Burgum added that “breakthroughs of this nature” have the potential to inspire scientists to push the limits of what’s possible. “The Department of the Interior looks forward to a vibrant future full of innovation that advances core missions such as wildlife conservation,” the post concluded."
I didn't think former North Dakota governor Doug Burgum was the worst of Trump's picks; I was actually hoping he would pick him for his vice president, rather than JD Vance. At least he had some experience as a governor. But as is typical with the Trump administration, he puts people in the position they are least qualified for. Burgum's experience prior to getting involved in politics was in software and real estate. Zip, nada, in anything touching on biology, ecology, or genetics. Well, that's not quite true. I don't think he had any high regard as governor for anything touching on preserving the environment when it got in the way of mining or fossil fuels.
If you have been paying attention to the hype around Colossal Biosciences' claim that they have brought the dire wolf (a very large canid distantly related to gray wolves which went extinct around 10,000 years ago), you will know that there is some fine print. There was no actual fossil DNA involved in their experiment. Unless you had a perfectly preserved specimen in permafrost ice to work with, any DNA would be too fragmented and deteriorated to be useful. What they did was to take gray wolf DNA and tinker with about 20 genes, trying to reverse evolve back to their common ancestor. And if we've watched any movies, we know how genetic experiments can go sideways.
The best way to prevent a species from going extinct is to, you know, take care of the existing animals and plants and their environment.
As always, pop culture plays a part. I didn't watch Game of Thrones, but there were apparently dire wolves in that. And these cubs look remarkably like the wolves in Game of Thrones. Which are not dire wolves. They are white gray wolves. If that makes any sense.
As for "Hotel California" it's not the creatures on the endangered species list which never want to leave. It's the MAGAs in the Trump administration.
Typical thuggish anti-environmental thinking. Even if you perfectly brought back a dire wolf, you can’t bring back the ecology in which it had its place. This, of course, is to be expected of a mentality that is blind and hostile to relatedness. There’s also the question: is the mitochondrial DNA the same (probably not) as the original and does it make a difference?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, the mitochondrial DNA comes from the mother. And if the mother was actually a grey wolf, no it would definitely not be from a dire wolf. Especially since none of it actually came from a dire wolf, because they didn't have one. Just reverse engineering. I don't think they actually know all that mitochondrial DNA does. So yes, unintended consequences.
DeleteAs far as ecology, the dire wolves preyed on such things as wooly mammoths and Irish elks, which aren't around anymore. It's a totally different world now
There actually have been species which made it off the endangered list, including the bald eagle. But the bald eagle is still protected, so you still don't get to shoot one and have it mounted for your trophy room.
ReplyDeleteSpecies make it off the endangered list for three reasons. One of which is that it recovered in sufficient numbers that it no longer qualifies as endangered. Another reason is new information which shows higher numbers, and possibly new locations, than were originally known. But the biggest reason for no longer being on the endangered list is that the species actually went extinct.
The Free Press (the Substack e-publication, not the Detroit newspaper) published an article on this Dire Wolf experiment.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thefp.com/p/is-dire-wolf-real-colossal-deextinction?utm_campaign=260347&utm_source=cross-post&r=2jtjx&utm_medium=email
Sorry, I am not certain if it is available to non-subscribers.
Here is an excerpt I found interesting:
"But do the new pups, in fact, have 100 percent the same DNA as the dire wolves of yore, I asked. “Ninety-nine point five percent,” [Colossal Biosciences founder and billionaire Ben] Lamm told me. And, as of now, the dire wolf is the “most precision, multiplex germline-edited animal on the planet.” And yet, if humans and chimpanzees share 98.8 percent of the same DNA, I point out, is sharing 99.5 percent of it as significant as it would seem?
"For the answer to this Lamm connects me to Colossal’s chief science officer, Beth Shapiro, a renowned evolutionary biologist and 2009 MacArthur Fellow who specializes in the genetics of Ice Age animals and plants. “All of these percentages are not particularly precise,” she told me. “In the old days, when people were first estimating chimpanzee relatedness to humans, they used several different approaches that resulted in numbers being published that ranged from 95 percent identical to 99 percent identical and unfortunately all of these are correct because it depends on what we’re measuring.”
"What’s more, she explained, when it comes to the dire wolves, “it’s tough to know what is in the remaining 0.5 percent of similarity. But keep in mind that most of the differences between two individuals are not differences that are important to making the species that species. You and I do not have genomes that are 100 percent identical, but anything that is in that long list of differences between us or between our two dire wolves is probably not important to making a human a human—or a dire wolf a dire wolf.”
"What Colossal has created, she said, are “animals that are 99.5 percent similar to dire wolves because of the shared evolutionary history. They also have 20 additional edits that we have seen bring back dire wolf traits. It’s correct to call them a dire wolf according to some species definitions. But it’s also not correct, according to other definitions.”
"What will never be possible, she said, is to “bring something back that is 100 percent identical in every way—genetically, physiologically, behaviorally, ecologically—to an extinct species. Especially because a species is more than just the sequence of its DNA. But that wasn’t the intention of this project and it’s not the intention of any de-extinction project.”"
It feels uncomfortably like playing God. I am all for genetically modifying crops to make them more disease resistant. But when it comes to mammals, that feels different. I admit I'm having hard time articulating precisely what those differences are.
Yeah, I'm squeamish about it too. Because if they can do it with animals, they can do it with humans.
Delete"What will never be possible, she said, is to “bring something back that is 100 percent identical in every way—genetically, physiologically, behaviorally, ecologically—to an extinct species. Especially because a species is more than just the sequence of its DNA."
ReplyDeleteThe environment is just as important as the genetics. We really can't and don't want to restore the dinosaurs.
Here in Lake County the bald eagles have come back. At first, they were a great curiosity. They had to institute a no stopping and no parking area along one of our roads that was close to an eagle's nest. Now there are enough of them flying around that you can see them in several of the lakefront parks. However, if their population grows and grows and they start to feast on pets, it will be another matter.
The deer population in the county has overgrown our capacity. We can fence in our gardens, but they are a danger to traffic. We now sometimes hear the distant sound of wolves. Some say the insurance people have released them to cut down on the deer.
The Canada Geese population is also out of control.
I grew up in a family and in an area which practiced hunting. I did hunt with my father for rabbits and pheasants on the posted farm of my grandfather. (Only family members could hunt).
There are few real wilderness areas left. Most of our wilderness like areas have been highly modified by the surrounding land.
I'm fine with people hunting, if they have the landowners' permission, and practice safety around people and livestock. And if it keeps the deer and geese thinned out, so much the better.
DeleteI'll admit that I have a squeamish stomach about eating game. It just tastes weird, and not in a good way. I know my pioneer ancestors basically lived on it. I wouldn't have made a good pioneer. But maybe it's like my dad said, if you're hungry enough you'll eat anything.
A friend’s daughter - an animal lover - went to the AF Academy during the late 90s - mid-east wars . As a pilot who could be shot down she underwent survival training that included being able to survive in the wilderness. Besides eating berries, plants etc that grew, she had to hunt down and capture a rabbit, kill it, and suck the moisture from its eyeballs in case she couldn’t find enough water. She did it. Fortunately she was never shot down. She flew a tanker to refuel the fighters and was based in “ the sandbox” somewhere. Now she is a pilot for Alaska Airlines.
Delete"...sucking rabbit eyeballs", that just maxes out my ick alarm!
DeleteI'm glad she's now a commercial pilot and doesn't (hopefully) have to worry about getting shot down.