Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

'De-Extinction' Company Will Try To Bring Back the Dodo 123

Posted by BeauHD from the real-life-Jurassic-Park dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Genetic engineering company Colossal Biosciences said Tuesday that it will try to resurrect the extinct dodo bird, and it's received $150 million in new funding to support its "de-extinction" activities. The dodo was already part of Colossal's plans by September 2022, but now the company has announced it with all the pomp, circumstance, and seed funding that suggests it will actually go after that goal. The $150 million, the company's second round of funding, was led by several venture capital firms, including United States Innovative Technology Fund and In-Q-Tel, a VC firm funded by the CIA that first put money into the company in September. Adding the dodo to its official docket brings Colossal's total de-extinction targets to three: the woolly mammoth (the company's first target species, announced in September 2021), and the thylacine, a.k.a. the Tasmanian tiger, the largest carnivorous marsupial. Adding the dodo to its official docket brings Colossal's total de-extinction targets to three: the woolly mammoth (the company's first target species, announced in September 2021), and the thylacine, a.k.a. the Tasmanian tiger, the largest carnivorous marsupial.

Colossal's stated goal is not to simply bring these creatures back for vibes; its contention is that reintroducing the species to their respective habitats would help restore a certain amount of normalcy to those environments. Mammoths died out about 4,000 years ago on Wrangel Island, off the northeastern coast of Russia. The dodo, a species of flightless bird native to the island of Mauritius, was gone by 1681. The last known thylacine died at a zoo in Tasmania in 1936. Scientists have sequenced the genomes of all three species -- the mammoth's in 2015, the dodo's in 2016, and the thylacine's in 2018. The latter species were driven to extinction by humankind; humans hunted the dodo, introduced predators and pests to its environment, and contributed to its habitat loss. Humans may have played a role in mammoth extinction as well, but the dodo and the thylacine are classic examples of our ability to wipe out species at extraordinary speed. [...]

If the company's work pans out -- and that's a big if -- proxy species of those extinct animals will be brought to bear. That's because the genetically engineered animals produced by Colossal would not be a bonafide mammoth, dodo, or thylacine. In 2016, the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Species Survival Commission published a report (PDF) denoting ground rules for creating proxy species. "Proxy is used here to mean a substitute that would represent in some sense (e.g. phenotypically, behaviorally, ecologically) another entity -- the extinct form," the commission stated, adding that "Proxy is preferred to facsimile, which implies creation of an exact copy." De-extinction is something of a misnomer, as this process, if successful, will yield science's best analogue for an extinct creature, not the creature itself as it existed in the past. De-extinction methods generally rely on using a living creature's genetics in the resurrection process. That means any 21st-century mammoth will have at least some modern elephant DNA imbued in it, and any nascent thylacine would be produced from the genome and egg of a related species.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'De-Extinction' Company Will Try To Bring Back the Dodo More

'De-Extinction' Company Will Try To Bring Back the Dodo

Comments Filter:

  • And then it learns to open doors and (Score:3, Funny)

    by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @10:42PM (#63255727)

    use unix?

  • They're moving in herds. (Score:4, Funny)

    by The Evil Atheist ( 2484676 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @10:58PM (#63255749)
    They do move in herds.

  • Nintendo already brought back the dodo, and they run an airline. Also have a kind of catchy theme song [youtube.com], too.

  • Do the da da da

  • True innovation (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @11:03PM (#63255759)

    Adding the dodo to its official docket brings Colossal's total de-extinction targets to three: the woolly mammoth (the company's first target species, announced in September 2021), and the thylacine, a.k.a. the Tasmanian tiger, the largest carnivorous marsupial. Adding the dodo to its official docket brings Colossal's total de-extinction targets to three: the woolly mammoth (the company's first target species, announced in September 2021), and the thylacine, a.k.a. the Tasmanian tiger, the largest carnivorous marsupial

    Duping within an article. It saves time. Duping within an article. It saves time.

    • Re:True innovation (Score:5, Funny)

      by Farmer Tim ( 530755 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @12:06AM (#63255875) Journal

      The Slashdot editor (Prolixantia verbosus) was last seen in the wild in 2012, and although evidence of a few surviving individuals such as droppings and typography corrections were observed sporadically for the next few years, the species was declared extinct in 2016.

      When asked if they would consider de-extinction for Slashdot editors, the site’s current owner responded in a statement “I’m not touching Rob Malda’s DNA, that’s why we had the office sterilized.”

    • Re:True innovation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bug_hunter ( 32923 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @12:15AM (#63255889)

      I saw a seminar on someone tasked with reviving the Tasmanian tiger, it was an interesting talk.
      The main points I remember is the process were:
      * Analysing DNA from samples of the dead creature.
      * Finding the closest living relative on the evolution tree.
      * Trying to work out how to make hundreds of thousands of DNA changes to an embreo of the living relative (CRISPR is amazing technology but it doesn't currently scale anywhere close to changing something's species). Sadly I can't remember if doing this in stages was even practical (or scientifically ethical).

      I don't think we'll see any outcomes in the next decade, but will be interested by the progress.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by bozzy ( 992580 )
      The article was probably written by ChatGPT. In addition, it was written by a bot called ChatGPT.
  • How this bring this long dead thing going to fux with what is here now...

    • Re:And what of the local ecology (Score:5, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @11:59PM (#63255855)

      They haven't been extinct that long, about 400 years, and they will help the local ecology. Some native tree seeds must pass through the gut of a dodo to sprout. Turkeys can substitute, but only if humans push the seeds down their throats.

      The only flora and fauna that may be adversely affected are invasive species that don't belong on Mauritius.

      • They haven't been extinct that long, about 400 years, and they will help the local ecology. Some native tree seeds must pass through the gut of a dodo to sprout. Turkeys can substitute, but only if humans push the seeds down their throats.

        The only flora and fauna that may be adversely affected are invasive species that don't belong on Mauritius.

        Also of note, the arctic circle is still missing Mammoths and the Avocado is still missing giant ground sloths.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        This is the anti-scientific "there is such a thing as natural state which does change" view that is common among modern day environementalists.

        In real world on the other hand, world changes constantly. Extinction isn't an abnormal thing you need to stop to "help ecology". Extinction is ecology's tool to clean out the unfit from the path of better fit. It's known as evolution.

        Something that religious nutjobs seem to hate regardless of specifics of their religion. I guess this is because most religions worshi

        • So we should accept a uniform global environment of rats and cockroaches?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            Do you think yourself some kind of a god, able to change ecosystems at will?

            Because rats and cockroaches make for two great examples of just how weak and pathetic humans are when it comes to trying to remove species that have adapted to us from our vicinity.

        • Extinction isn't an abnormal thing you need to stop to "help ecology". Extinction is ecology's tool to clean out the unfit from the path of better fit. It's known as evolution.

          This. Scientists estimate that 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived, or five billion species, have gone extinct. Some because some other species out competed them, or some because other species ate them all up, or meteor strikes and volcanic eruptions, or the biggest factor - environmental change. It is natural, even the species us humans have killed off in various ways, as we are just another species too (we're not aliens on this planet - we belong here as much as anything else).

          I'm not saying I'm

        • If one is to make the claim that a distinction between human caused extinction and naturalistic extinction is false, than so too is undoing human caused extinction through this sort of intervention indistinguishable from naturalistic speciation. If we measure the health of an ecology by its biodiversity, then, yes, reintroducing these species is a good thing to do.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            Making this distinction is a religious tenet that elevates homo sapiens as something other than a part of the system. It is anti-scientific for the very reason I outline above. Humanity is just as much a part of the system as any other organism. It has just proven itself to be one of the most fit organisms on the planet, hence its ability to spread across the planet.

    • My question is, how are they going to achieve this magic once the $150M runs out, and if they have got a magic bring-back machine why not bring back Roman empress Valeria Messalina, who allegedly blew a thousand guys in one night? They could make millions selling those.

  • Mc Dodo nuggets?

    Any word if these things actually taste good? Or will it be another tastes like chicken?

    • Any word if these things actually taste good? Or will it be another tastes like chicken?

      Well, if you did all the selective breeding to a dodo that we've done to domestic chickens, yeah, it probably would taste like a chicken.

    • Re:Kentucky Fried Dodo ? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @12:03AM (#63255867)

      Any word if these things actually taste good?

      Sailors passing through the Indian ocean occasionally ate them. They reported they were stringy and gamey. They were only eaten as a last resort. It was pigs and rats feeding on their eggs that drove dodos to extinction, not human hunters.

      The same company is also working on de-extincting mammoths. Unlike dodos, mammoths were delicious.

  • Give me an island (Score:3)

    by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2023 @11:34PM (#63255799)
    Give me an island full of dodos and I'll start life like in Ark and hope dinosaurs don't show up!

  • Spend $150 million, and you choose to bring back...the meme bird?

    I see we're in no hurry to bring Common F. Sense back from the dead.

  • Paul Spooner made an automaton revealing his take on the extinction of the dodo, in the Cabaret Mechanical Theater, which was once in Covent Garden, London. It was copied to make a toy that could be sold, and someone recorded it in action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • Bring back some alpha level shit instead, like Megalodon, Titanoboa, or Godzilla. Not some bird that will go extinct again because it tastes even better than chicken.

    • Humans cause things that taste good to exist in the billions, far greater than their natural totals.

      Dodo burgers at McDonald's in 2050!

      • Yeah, but I think there is a "sweet spot" wherein if something tastes extremely good it will get eaten instead of cultivated because of the temptation factor.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Need significantly more CO2 in the atmopshere to get megafauna back. Foundational ecological requirement is probably least two-three times the current concentration, which enables flora to function much more effectively (chlorophyll is evolved for at least 1500ppm CO2, not slightly over 400 we have today, producing far more energy dense megaflora than ice age and near ice age flora we have today.

      Which in turn enables existence of much more energy dense herbivore megafauna, as it would need to spend much les

      • There are several different photosynthesis pathways, and not all of them are optimised for 1500ppm CO2. Chief amongst them, IIRC, is C3 as used by cereal crops. If we had 1500ppm, we'd need to rethink food. In any case, your premise is wrong as megafauna existed in conditions with the same CO2 concentrations as at present. In locations like New Zealand, megafauna persisted until less than 1000 years ago when CO2 concentrations were much lower than at present. If anything, the peak of recent multi-continenta

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rossdee ( 243626 )

          "New Zealand, megafauna persisted until less than 1000 years ago"

          Are you talking about the Moa? They were big, but I would hardly call them megafauna

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            The moa is geberally classed as megafauna, although it is a loose definition. It was bigger by a considerable margin compared to current fauna of the same general type. A lower limit of 100lbs is considered required, and the moa was 500lbd.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          Anti-scientific garbage based on redefining "megafauna" as something completely different (last of megafauna died long before current ice age started, and that was located in the oceans where environmental changes are much slower to take hold due to extreme systemic inertia), as well as lack of knowledge that we already produce current food crops in 1500ppm environments.

          We call them "industrial greenhouses".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            No, it's not a redefinition. The definition is loose, but most science considers megafauna to not be defined thr way you would like it to be: you are the one unscientifically redefining it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            There is some small level of experimentation in high CO2 crop production, but it doesn't particularly benefit those with C3 pathways. Are you suggesting we swap out staple foods to tomatoes, etc?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            Before anyone jumps in, 600ppm gives an increase in cereal yields by 20%, but that's in an environment controlled for water and heat, and in the real world yields across the world would not necessarily increase with current crop types, even with some improvements in breeding recently announced. Not much more yield is seen at 1000ppm, let alone 1500ppm, and seedlings across broad ranges of food crops struggle above 800ppm, which suggests that they are not well evolved for 1500ppm. Some plants will still grow

  • Aren't they in danger of creating a carnivore that can't or doesn't like hunting? Or a dodo that's vicious, or some other mockery of the original, that might fool our eyes but otherwise doesn't really relate to the original?

    • Aren't they in danger of creating a carnivore that can't or doesn't like hunting? Or a dodo that's vicious, or some other mockery of the original, that might fool our eyes but otherwise doesn't really relate to the original?

      They're in danger of creating velociraptors with amphibian DNA. They were so concerned with whether or not they could they never stopped to think about whether or not they should.

  • They will go the way of the Hyperloop.
  • What about T-Rex Dynosaurs? Let's have them back too!

  • Why settle for a Dodo if you can have a T-Rex? (Score:3)

    by thesjaakspoiler ( 4782965 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @01:36AM (#63255993)

    All these generation-Z youngsters just don't know when to aim high.
    With current technologies you could make a T-Rex the size of a chihuahua.
    Wouldn't that be cool?
    Paris Hilton with a T-Rex in her handbag?

    • When I see plucked chicken carcasses, I think to myself those forelimbs don't look TOO different from the stereotypical TRex arms. Then at one stage I got a couple of bantam chickens. Those dudes were a real menace to smaller lifeforms; they'd catch and eat mice and frogs that happened into their pen (which contained my vegetable garden at the same time, so plenty of pulling factors for mice). Always glad they weren't, say, ostrich size, then the neighbor's Rottweiler would do good to stay an out-of-reach d

  • Can they bring that one back too?

  • Ah yeah. Ooh ahh. Thatâ(TM)s how it always starts. Then later thereâ(TM)s the running and the screaming..

    Haven't they learned?

  • Honest question (Score:3)

    by Bandraginus ( 901166 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @03:28AM (#63256139)

    Let's say they bring back the thylacine. Of course, they'd have to produce enough to reach a minimum viable population to reach genetic diversity.

    Now what?

    Honest question. Release them into the wild? It's not like the farmers that killed them to protect their flocks would be too impressed. There's no ecological environment left for them that we'd be willing to give up

    Which simply leaves bringing back a single animal to be a curiosity in a zoo. Seems a bit cruel to me.

    So I cannot honestly fathom how they expect this to pan out. The dodo, too. Same same.

    • Depending on the zoo, life in a zoo is preferable to life in the wild.

    • I do wonder if whatever animals brought back will still follow the same things they used to.

      Will it have the same instincts that the original had or react the same way to the same stimuli? Or will it be a semi blank slate which is to be "trained" in whatever way you want?

    • I used to live in Huonville, TZ. Taz is the size of Utah in the US with 1/4 of it being pristine untouched country with Gum trees that rival the redwoods in CA in size and majesty. I believe a decent sized population of Thylacines could be released there with very little danger to Farmer's flocks.

    • There are places in Tasmania that would be suitable. For example, Maria Island [wikipedia.org] is where they released wombats and Tasmanian Devils as part of conservation efforts. It's a national park, so there are no farmers to irritate.

      Even if they were released in mainland Tasmania and strayed from national park into farmland, I doubt they'd be any more of a nuisance [wooleen.com.au] than the dingo (a breed of more-or-less-native dog), which is a similar-sized predator. I doubt they'd take on fully grown sheep/cattle, and there are plen

  • Why not save the species that are still living... (Score:3)

    by williamyf ( 227051 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @04:13AM (#63256177)

    ...but close to extintion first?

    In my country (Venezuela) there used to be Gavialiloids, but they went extinct. Instead of de-extincting the old ones, we coud bring Indian Gavials and "Fake gavials" (which, ironicaly, are true gavialiloids) here, since they only eat fish, no biggie for humans or other animals, we even could put then on rivers with excess Pirañas. ;-) Remember, there used to be gavialiloids here. Their very recent extintion came about because of climate change, and the rise of the "cordillera de la costa", the ecosystem can sustain them.

    Also here, there used to be Pachiderms, Mastodons to be precise. Instead of de-extincting the mastodons of yore, and since the Elephants are in danger, we could bring african elephants to the north and west shores of the Orinoco river and Asian elephants to the west and south shores. Elephants are non-agresive non-territorial herbivores, so no big impact on the ecosystem or humans (and remember, until less than 20000 ago, there used to be pachiderms here).

    Same with Rhinos. We used to have rhino analogues (toxodonts). Instead of de-extinting those, we coud bring actuall rhynos, those are peacefull, herbibores (a little bit more territorial than elephants, but much less territorial and agresive than hippos).

    That would be a fauna recovery effort whorth a while, and thechnologically easier...

    PS: Hippos are already in South America, and unlike gavials, elephans or rhynos , they are having a big negative impact with local populations and a slightly negative one with the environment (their poop is changing the chemistry and bacterial composition of water courses)

    • You can't necessarily save what's failing now, but bringing something back that already got wiped out is equally not a great plan.

    • Guaranteed any rhinos introduced to Venezuela would quickly be killed for their horns.

      • Guaranteed any rhinos introduced to Venezuela would quickly be killed for their horns.

        Normally, you would not introduce the rhynos and elephants and let them run wild. For a while those will be in a preserve, being tightly monitored, until their populations expand enough to let them be wild.

        During that time, I guess that no poachers will be able to hunt them...

        Let's hope that by the time they are let 100% free, the situation in the country has improved enough so that the people here has no need to poach tha animals for the horns/tusks

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Why not save the species that are still living...but close to extinction first?

      Because we can do both. Avoid casting this as a false dilemma. "Why are we launching rockets when we have not solved global poverty? Why are we making video games when there are homeless people living in tents?" Firing the biologists working on this project won't stop whale hunting or ivory poachers. But suppose that Colossal Biosciences puts a Tazmanian Tiger into a zoo. That could reinvigorate people to donate to protecting existing species. And the Zoo's increased profits could be directed toward

      • Why not save the species that are still living...but close to extinction first?

        Because we can do both. Avoid casting this as a false dilemma.

        It was not my intention to cast this as a false dilema, but, if it was not abundantly clear in my post, english is not my first language, so maybe I wrote in a way that gave you that impression...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MobyDisk ( 75490 )
          I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Perhaps I am overly sensitive to people arguing a false dilemma. Your English is excellent.

  • Stuff like this always make me think of the scene in the Better Off Ted [wikipedia.org] episode Heroes [fandom.com] (s1e2) where the guy is tasting the lab-grown meat [youtube.com] ...

    Jerome [tasting meat made in lab]: It tastes familiar.
    Ted: Beef?
    Jerome: No.
    Linda: Chicken? We'll take chicken.
    Ted: What does it taste like?
    Jerome: Despair.
    Ted: Is it possible it just needs salt?

    Wish that show had lasted more than two seasons ...

  • ...that company will go the way of the Dodo.

  • What can possibly go wrong?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Well, that was the joke I was expecting. Or something about "tastier than chicken"?

      I, for one, will welcome our fake meat overlords? I've already eaten enough chicken.

  • Awesome! Do Elvis Next!!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Mod parent funny, though cloning has already been done.

      What I want to know is how many clones of John Henry are running around these days?

  • Why 'proxy is preferred to facsimile'? (Score:3)

    by noodler ( 724788 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @07:51AM (#63256387)

    I mean, what's the point of a proxy vs an exact copy?

  • I mean, c'mon, what could go wrong?

  • Bring back is not a thing ... (Score:3)

    by JasterBobaMereel ( 1102861 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2023 @08:47AM (#63256515)

    They can't and they won't - they are trying to create animals that superficially look like extinct species - two have no environment to go back to so will have to be kept in zoos , the third the Dodo, has an environment to go to, and if it can eat Calvaria nuts and remove the coating but not the seed then it might save the Calvaria tree from extinction .... but there is no real likelihood that this will be done at all and almost certainly not in time

  • If they can pull this off, I assume they will release it in it natural habitat, Wackyland?

  • One step closer to impossible wings. I mean, they went extinct because they taste good so
  • Similes such as "Avoid it like a plague" and "Sober as a judge" are becoming obsolete. Now add "Dead as a dodo" to that list.

  • Adding the dodo to its official docket brings Colossal's total de-extinction targets to three: the woolly mammoth (the company's first target species, announced in September 2021), and the thylacine, a.k.a. the Tasmanian tiger, the largest carnivorous marsupial. Adding the dodo to its official docket brings Colossal's total de-extinction targets to three: the woolly mammoth (the company's first target species, announced in September 2021), and the thylacine, a.k.a. the Tasmanian tiger, the largest carnivoro

  • Exactly _why_ are we doing this? So we can create a creature that will live in captivity with no hope of a mate or society while the captors take guesses (in the case of mammoth and dodo) at what it eats and what diseases it is susceptible to? This is so random you wonder if it's like a lame apology for having killed off the species ... or is it a cover for genetic experimentation that would otherwise be deemed unethical? What if we used the money to prevent further extinctions eg. give poachers in Afric

Slashdot Top Deals

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

Close