Colossal Biosciences has announced plans to âde-extinctâ the New Zealand moa, one of the worldâs largest and most iconic extinct birds, but critics say the companyâs goals remain scientifically impossible.
The moa was the only known completely wingless bird, lacking even the vestigial wings of birds like emus. There were once nine species of moa in New Zealand, ranging from the turkey-sized bush moa (Anomalopteryx didiformis) to the two biggest species, the South Island giant moa (Dinornis robustus) and North Island giant moa (Dinornis novaezealandiae), which both reached heights of 3.6 metres and weights of 230 kilograms.
It is thought that all moa species were hunted to extinction by the mid-15th century, following the arrival of Polynesian people, now known as MÄori, to New Zealand sometime around 1300.
Advertisement
Colossal has announced that it will work with the Indigenous NgÄi Tahu Research Centre, based at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, along with film-maker Peter Jackson and Canterbury Museum, which holds the largest collection of moa remains in the world. These remains will play a key role in the project, as Colossal aims to extract DNA to sequence and rebuild the genomes for all nine moa species.
As with Colossalâs other âde-extinctionâ projects, the work will involve modifying the genomes of animals still living today. at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who is a scientific adviser to Colossal, says that although the moaâs closest living relatives are the tinamou species from Central and South America, they are comparatively small.
This means the project will probably rely on the much larger Australian emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae). âWhat emus have is very large embryos, very large eggs,â says Pask. âAnd thatâs one of the things that you definitely need to de-extinct a moa.â
Colossal previously announced what it called the âde-extinctionâ of the dire wolf, a claim disputed by outside experts because the animals are grey wolves with a handful of modified genes. Pask says this wonât be the case with the moa project and there will be âorders of magnitudeâ more DNA edits.
âThe difference here with the moa is it really is going to be properly trying to re-engineer the moa back,â he says. âThere will be no one who can question whether this is a moa when that animal eventually gets re-hatched back into our world. It will be a recreated or re-engineered moa at the end of the process.â
Exactly where these animals will reside is unclear. at the NgÄi Tahu Research Centre says his organisation and the local MÄori community will need to clearly understand the âviability and moralityâ of Colossalâs work as it progresses. âOnce we have done so, we can fully consider where and how any âColossal moaâ might be located,â he says. âThat in itself raises a series of fascinating practical and moral questions. But we cannot unpack them in any depth until we have carefully considered other factors â and, of course, the technology proves itself.â
But at the University of Otago, New Zealand, says that whatever Colossal produces, it wonât be a moa, but rather a âpossible look-alike with some very different featuresâ. He points out that although the tinamou is the moaâs closest relative, the two diverged 60 million years ago.
âThe bottom line is that Colossalâs approach to de-extinction uses genetic engineering to alter a near-relative of an extinct species to create a GMO [genetically-modified organism] that resembles the extinct form,â he says. âThere is nothing much to do with solving the global extinction crisis and more to do with generating fundraising media coverage.â
Pask strongly disputes this sentiment and says the knowledge being gained through de-extinction projects will be critically important to helping save endangered species today.
at Adelaide University, Australia, says he thinks the project will offer some âinteresting new insights into moaâs biology and evolutionâ. But he says if the same research path is pursued as that of the dire wolf project, then Colossal may have a âhard time persuading people that the results of this process could be regarded as moaâ.
âThey may superficially have some moa traits, but are unlikely to behave as moa did or be able to occupy the same ecological niches, which will perhaps relegate them to no more than objects of curiosity,â says Wood.
