Colossal’s announcement has captured the public’s imagination, especially since the created wolves, called Romulo, Remo and Khaleesi, evoke both prehistoric creatures and referents of pop culture and Game of Thrones. The same company showed barely a month ago woolly mice that obtained their fur thanks to mammoth genetics. But behind that media brightness, science raises an eyebrow.
According to the company’s story, after extracting the old DNA from a terrible wolf tooth from 13,000 years ago in Ohio and an internal ear bone of 72,000 years ago in Idaho, 91% of its genome was obtained. He compared it to that of the current gray wolf and the result showed 99.5% similarity. Then, 20 key differences were identified in 14 determining genes that were edited to obtain the phenotypic characteristics of these predators.
Is it or not de -sexyting?
Although colossal refers to its feat as a welcoming, the scientific community prefers a more precise term: selective genetic engineering. And it is that the process did not consist of cloning the extinct giant wolf or terrible wolf (Canis Dirus) from its complete DNA, but in modifying 14 genes of the modern gray wolf to recreate some of its most distinctive physical characteristics.
“The terrible wolf genome has not been completely recreated, so It could not be considered a delegation as such”, Explains the research professor at the South Scientific University Shirley de la Cruz to El Comercio. “The result is a hybrid, since a gray wolf oocyte was used, whose mitochondria retains its original genetic information”.
The created specimens may have the terrible wolf phenotype, its large size, giant jaws, more developed musculature, but are not terrible wolves.
Calling the procedure made probably born of a more advertising decision. Beth Shapiro, scientific head of the company, told the New Yorker that “It is not possible to bring something exactly as it was”.
“We have managed to create the phenotype of a terrible wolf”he said. Since its goal is not to make perfect photocopies, but hybrid, diverse and selective, with modern, ancient and synthetic DNA.
It should be taken into account that the feat has not yet been published in any scientific journal, so it has not yet has an guarantee, say, one hundred percent formal. The specimens, on the other hand, are not in sight of any person, live in an ecological reserve of 2,000 acres in the United States in an unleashed location. What is known about them, for the moment, is thanks to two reports published by the media ‘New Yorker and’ Time ‘.
/
Ethical dilemmas
The consequences of this achievement are not only in the technical and scientific field. Of the cross, a biologist by profession, warns that one of the ethical dilemmas More relevant is the well -being of the “desixtint” animals themselves, which can face serious difficulties by not having an adequate environment to develop.
“Bring a species whose ecosystem has varied for thousands of years can affect your health because it does not have adequate natural habitat”he points out. “In addition, introduce one of these species into a current ecosystem could generate a significant ecological impactunbalancing the dynamics among existing species ”.
A similar vision has Evangelist Shirley, head of the Laboratory of Reproductive and Cellular Biotechnology and responsible for the research centers also of the Southern Scientific University.
MIRA: How bees became an unexpected tool to protect elephants
“Its habitat has changed dramatically, both its prey and their predators no longer exist or have evolved, and The current ecological balance would not necessarily facilitate its adaptation. Beyond what fiction raises – as in Jurassic Park -, the main risk does not fall on humans, but on the animals created through these processes ”explains Evangelista, who is veterinary, to this newspaper. “Condemn them to live in captivity only to study or exhibit certain ancestral features It can be considered a form of instrumentalization that compromises your well -being”points out.
The researcher considers reasonable that, lacking natural references and developing in isolation, these animals could present alterations in their behavior, generating pathological behaviors that They harm their mental and physical health.
“This would not only affect the individuals themselves, but, in extreme scenarios, it could also represent a risk for the people who surround them. Therefore, the possibility of releasing them in natural environments is, at least for now, unfeasible and ethically questionable”he mentions.
In addition, Evangelist also believes that bringing extinct organisms or similar to them and placing them in a completely different world could represent a form of animal suffering. “In cases of natural extinction, we must accept that These species ceased to exist because of their inability to adapt. Relive them without considering these factors can be irresponsible and counterproductive ”he refers.
Business in between
Another concern is the allocation of resources. Does it make sense to invest millions in bringing back an extinct wolf when there are thousands of living species that disappear every year?
“A legitimate debate is generated on whether it is better to direct those resources to conserve living and functional species in current ecosystems, instead of restoring animals that have not lived with us in centuries”think of the cross.
It cannot be ignored that Colossal is a company valued at more than 10,000 million dollarswith investors of venture capital firms and personalities such as Thomas Tull, producer of the movie Jurassic World, Paris Hilton, Peter Jackson and Chris Hemsworth.
How often, the company attracts the attention of the cameras with their scientific successes. But beyond technological enthusiasm and media fervor, the degence raises deep questions about its real benefits and ethical implications. Is it worth bringing back extinct species when many current ones are on the verge of collapse? What role should science against an ecosystem that has changed radically since the disappearance of these creatures?
The geneticist of the Scientific Research Council of Spain Lluís Montoliu expressly expresses this unknown in an article in El País:
“What they have achieved is very risky and they have done it in a very successful way: I take off my hat, because they have solved very complex problems”. “What Colossal does is already among surprising and worrying: What is the reason for creating these animals, having a zoo of impossible creatures?”.
Indeed, the creation of species de -sextipas, such as terrible wolves, raises fundamental questions about its management and destiny. What is finally the goal? Is it viable to reintroduce them in their natural habitat or is it safer to keep them in captivity?
Endangered species
Beyond the media success that colossal has achieved with its achievements, behind there is a biotechnology development that can be very useful. While the company plans to bring back other extinct species such as the Lanudo mammut the Tasmania tiger, the dodo, the tiger tooth of saber or the lazy land; That is not its only or main objective. The mission of preventing endangered species has also been proposed to disappear completely. The same techniques used in the terrible wolf could be used similarly to support some of these species in danger, for example, the red wolf. In fact, Four copies have already been developed through cloning techniques.
One of the benefits most cited by those who defend this technology is the possibility of Restore ecosystems altered by the loss of key species. The potential to recover genetic diversity in animals in danger is also highlighted, particularly in populations with high consanguinity.
MIRA: Oral Antiviral avoids death by the fearsome Ebola virus in Macacos Rhesus infected
“Many extinct animals in their natural habitat, but still survive in captivity, could benefit from this technology,” Explain from the cross. “By genetic edition you can introduce lost genetic variants typical of the species, based on information available in data banks or samples stored in natural museums”.
The logic behind this proposal is clear: if a population is reduced and genetically impoverished, it becomes more vulnerable to diseases and less capable of adapting to the environment. The genetic edition would allow to reintroduce lost variants and reinforce its survival.
In the same line goes evangelist, who considers that the development of biotechnologies carried out as part of this process can have indirect benefits, such as the strengthening of scientific abilities to preserve critical species.
“It could allow us, for example, Partially reverse the damage caused by human activities –As indiscriminate hunting or the destruction of habitats – in certain species ”.
However, she is emphatic in saying that closing genetically identical individuals does not solve the underlying problem: loss of diversity.
“In the case of the red wolf, if only the few viable individuals are closed, the existence of the species would be temporarily prolonged, but not its long -term viability”he points out. “That is why it is crucial to complement these strategies with genetic banks, planned crossings and, if necessary, genetic introgress controlled from nearby species”he adds.
We can find a good example of effective biotechnology application in the case of the Giant Panda, where assisted reproduction, habitat protection and community education were combined.
Awareness and regulation
Frenting the technological advance does not seem a viable or desirable option. For the specialists consulted, the road must focus on raising awareness among the urgency of preserving the species that still inhabit the planet, since the degence should be considered only as an extreme resource.
In the same way, they warn that legislation in each country needs to be updated to establish clear limits in these processes and carefully regulate the possible reintroduction of species created in the laboratory. First of all, they underline, the welfare of the animal and the ecological balance of the environment to which it is intended to integrate it must be prioritized.