Can Colossal's Genetically Engineered Animals Ever Be the Real Thing? (theguardian.com) 24
Colossal Biosciences, the Texas-based startup now valued at more than $10 billion that has attracted investments from Paris Hilton, Peter Jackson and Tom Brady, claimed earlier this year to have resurrected the dire wolf -- an animal that disappeared at the end of the last ice age -- but a group of leading canid experts concluded the company had done no such thing.
The scientists found that Colossal had made 20 edits to the DNA of grey wolves and the resulting animals did not substantially differ from wolves currently roaming North America. Beth Shapiro, Colossal's own chief scientist, acknowledged to New Scientist: "It's not possible to bring something back that is identical to a species that used to be alive. Our animals are grey wolves with 20 edits that are cloned."
Nic Rawlence, director of the palaeogenetics laboratory at the University of Otago in New Zealand, added: "Rather than true de-extinction, Colossal's attempts are genetically engineered poor copies at best, passed off as the real deal."
The company has nevertheless pressed forward. It has launched projects to revive the Tasmanian tiger, the dodo, and the moa and plans to unveil its interpretation of the woolly mammoth -- a genetically modified Asian elephant adapted to survive at -40C -- in the coming years. The Trump administration cited the dire wolf announcement while making efforts to cut the US endangered species list, calling de-extinction technology a potential "bedrock for modern species conservation."
The scientists found that Colossal had made 20 edits to the DNA of grey wolves and the resulting animals did not substantially differ from wolves currently roaming North America. Beth Shapiro, Colossal's own chief scientist, acknowledged to New Scientist: "It's not possible to bring something back that is identical to a species that used to be alive. Our animals are grey wolves with 20 edits that are cloned."
Nic Rawlence, director of the palaeogenetics laboratory at the University of Otago in New Zealand, added: "Rather than true de-extinction, Colossal's attempts are genetically engineered poor copies at best, passed off as the real deal."
The company has nevertheless pressed forward. It has launched projects to revive the Tasmanian tiger, the dodo, and the moa and plans to unveil its interpretation of the woolly mammoth -- a genetically modified Asian elephant adapted to survive at -40C -- in the coming years. The Trump administration cited the dire wolf announcement while making efforts to cut the US endangered species list, calling de-extinction technology a potential "bedrock for modern species conservation."
Lab meat (Score:3)
Even if we can't resurrect the entire animal, if we can produce muscle cells we can create lab meat. I want my mammoth burger.
Re: (Score:2)
You could start with a trip to the right places and eat elephant burger.
Re: (Score:2)
Would be dry, tough (and crumbly), tasteless and likely gamey.
You need fat cells to provide flavor, cells that produce cartilage to help bind the cells together and provide the texture base after cooking. Probably need some blood cells as well to provide additional iron and flavoring.
The best steaks are marbled where the fat is distributed with the muscle to provide exquisite flavor
bread raptors (Score:2)
bread raptors
Reporters are the failures,not scientists (Score:2, Informative)
The scientists did not think they were making dire wolves. They are engaged in cutting edge genetic modification.
They believe that they will help save the current wolf population, create genetic diversity, make for a better, healthier biosphere, all while earning noble prizes.
The reporters hear they are using known, proven DNA that is not currently found in the wild (i.e. DNA taken from extinct creatures related to the current wolves sometimes called Dire Wolves).
The reporters do not think they can sell a
Re:Reporters are the failures,not scientists (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry but this is from Colossal's own website:
For the first time in human history, Colossal successfully restored a once-eradicated species through the science of de-extinction. After a 10,000+ year absence, our team is proud to return the dire wolf to its rightful place in the ecosystem. Colossal’s innovations in science, technology and conservation made it possible to accomplish something that's never been done before: the revival of a species from its longstanding population of zero.
Who are the ones lying exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
I should have rephrased it as:
"Journalists and Investors"
Re: (Score:2)
Can we recognize that perhaps the journalists reporting are based on the perception that Colossal is giving off itself by it's own staff and management based on the words they using to represent what they've done?
Re: (Score:1)
Neither journalists nor investors are typically as smart as they think they are.
The company is deliberately spreading falsehoods about its accomplishments.
In a sane world, this would be called fraud.
Interestingly, it is called fraud in this world, too.
Re:Reporters are the failures,not scientists (Score:4, Insightful)
These were never an accepted ideas among scientists.
They believe that they will help save the current wolf population,
They are not saving a wild population by releasing GMO wolves that will hybridize with the wild types, to the contrary this contributes to extinguish the wild population.
As an example, you don't save a population of wild cats or wild dogs by sending them domestic mates, to the contrary hybridization of vulnerable populations with domestic or modified populations is exactly what nature conservationists fear the most as it destroys the characteristics of the wild population.
create genetic diversity,
We only need to preserve habitats and biodiversity happens on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they're great. I can't wait for them to bring us back the basilisk, the sphinx, dragons, mermaids and gorgons.
Is some obvious BS too good to be true? (Score:3)
If yes, then what is the likelihood that it is actually true?
You know the answer.
Yabba Dabba Doo / I want my Bronto Burger! (Score:2)
So the dinosaurs were big, they were most likely made of DNA,
and again I want a Bronto Burger, like Fred F..
what a world (Score:2)
Betteridge says (Score:2)
"Substantial" is not a scientific word (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like science can't talk about meaning or integrity or spirituality.
Re: (Score:2)
Meaning and integrity are philosophical topics, so science can do something for you there. Spirituality, however, is a different matter unless considered a strictly neurological concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Paging Ian Malcolm (Score:3)
I'd rather have a partial clone of myself (Score:1)
More specifically, I'd like to be able to close my vital organs and critical body tissues in a short period of time, so if something when wrong with the originals they could be replaced.
I'm not so concerned about cloning the brain though - if the part of me that makes me "me" gets damaged, replacing it with cloned material won't replace the part of "me" that got damaged.
Also, for obvious ethical reasons, you don't want to be creating a person (as in, a cloned body that comes anywhere close to being able to
clone my vital organs, not close (Score:1)
>More specifically, I'd like to be able to clone my vital organs
Better not clone my typing fingers, they are defective already.
I know why Paris Hilton invested.. (Score:2)
Potentially yes? (Score:2)
This should be possible, if DNA (or substantial fragments) can be found. They obviously aren't there yet, but the potential is there.
Without DNA, you can only guess, which isn't really useful.