This story is a part of our Ask a Professor series, in which Georgetown faculty members break down complex issues and use their research to inform trending conversations, from the latest pop culture hits to research breakthroughs and critical global events shaping our world.
This week, the biotech company Colossal Biosciences announced they had successfully produced what they claim are three dire wolves, a predator that went extinct over 12,000 years ago and was popularized in the Game of Thrones television show.
The scientific endeavor raises questions about the ethics and consequences of genetic engineering and attempts to bring back extinct species.
Daniel Sulmasy is the director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and the Emergent Ethics Network, which was founded to address complex ethical issues like this one with interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration. He is also on the faculty for the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics and holds a joint appointment in the Department of Philosophy in the College of Arts & Sciences.
“There are potential harms to the animals themselves, to the environment, to human health and to the integrity and trust of the public in science,” said Dr. Daniel P. Sulmasy, a professor in the School of Medicine and director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics.
Peter Marra is the dean of the Earth Commons Institute and acting director of the Environmental Justice Commons. He is also the Laudato Si’ Professor of Biology and the Environment.
Peter Marra, dean of the Earth Commons Institute and Laudato Si Professor of Biology and the Environment, urges caution when scientists claim they have brought species back from extinction.
“If we have not removed the threats to species, if we have not restored their habitat, we have not created or nurtured a natural world in which these species can exist once again, let alone thrive,” Marra said. “In other words, what do we really mean by de-extinction?”
Should we bring back species that have gone extinct? What is a species? Explore the ethics of genetic engineering and attempts to bring back dire wolves and other extinct animals in this Q&A with Marra and Sulmasy, who are part of the new Emergent Ethics Network, which was founded to address complex ethical issues like this one with interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration.
Ask a Professor: The Ethics of De-extinction and Dire Wolves
Colossal Biosciences claims they successfully produced three dire wolf pups. What is the significance of this moment?
Pete: These are not dire wolf pups — they are grey wolf hybrids— and this is not a case of de-extinction. Modifications were made to a tiny, tiny part of the genome that they knew would produce a white coat. They might look slightly like what a dire wolf looked like, but more than 99.9% of the genome of these pups are grey wolf.
Dan: I agree, Pete. It is scientifically significant to extract genes from the remains of extinct animals and insert them into a living organism in which they function. We need, however, to be careful about hype in scientific communication. That itself is an ethical issue. They are reported to have made 20 edits in 14 genes using sequences extracted from paleologic specimens (including a tooth) that resulted in features that make these genetically modified organisms look like dire wolves. That is not Jurassic Park.
What are the philosophical and ethical arguments for genetic engineering?
Dan: There are countless possible benefits that can come about through genetic engineering, from curing human genetic diseases to making crops less resistant to drought or pathogens. The ethical principle of beneficence directs us to use science for benefit. There are also reasons to use genetic engineering techniques for purposes of pure research — to deepen our understanding of organisms and the natural world.
Pete: I fully support biological or genetic engineering when it can be helpful. I have no issues with it at all.
I’d say we can’t look to recover species that have gone extinct in the past before we conserve species in the present, especially species that disappeared over 10,000 years ago.
Peter Marra
What are the arguments against biological engineering and the process of de-extinction?
Dan: The first is that the so-called “technological imperative” is false. Just because something can be done does not mean that we ought to do it. We need to be cautious not to do more harm than good. There are potential harms to the engineered organisms, the environment and even humans. Too often, scientists rush to be the first to do something without considering the potential consequences. One need not adopt a full-throated “precautionary principle” and argue that nothing should be done until it is proven 100% safe. But one should adopt a stance of “prudent vigilance” about such research, proceeding cautiously, guarding against foreseeable harms and monitoring for unintended harmful consequences.
Pete: From a conservation perspective, dire wolves could not exist in nature now like they did 12,000 years ago when they went extinct. This is not a solution to the extinction of a species. We have major reintroduction programs in place for the critically endangered red wolf in the southeast U.S., for instance: it’s questionable as to whether or not they’re successful. Like so many other species, red wolves are still struggling, and we’re barely able to keep re-introduced wild populations stable.
I’d say we can’t look to recover species that have gone extinct in the past before we conserve species in the present, especially species that disappeared over 10,000 years ago. We’re in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. It’s happening all around us, and we need to save species before they disappear, not after. If we haven’t devoted the resources and funds to protecting species on the brink of extinction, then we’re barking up the wrong tree.
As another example, in the United States, we have identified 112 bird species that we consider to be right on the brink of being listed as threatened or endangered. That’s why we banded together to work with other conservationists, ornithologists and ecologists and started the Road to Recovery to recover the most rapidly declining bird species. It’s just one example of a conservation initiative that is ecologically sound, targeted and science-based, and which needs serious support and resources just to keep current wild populations stable.
Red wolves are an endangered species scientists have been trying to revive through reintroduction programs.
According to Colossal Biosciences, dire wolves and gray wolves share over 99% of their DNA. To what extent can these genetically engineered wolves be considered actual dire wolves?
Pete: To be clear, these are not dire wolves. The answer to this question lies in the definition of a species and which “species concept” you believe. Most scholars abide by the Biological Species Concept and/or the Phylogenetic Species Concept. The first is really about whether these individuals, once bred, produce viable babies, and the second is about whether these animals are distinct genetically.
Now, the scientists at Colossal Bioscience are claiming these animals represent “morphological species,” a different concept, since they have the coat color of a dire wolf. However, that is not sufficient. Take, for example, two completely different species of bird with no evolutionary history, the eastern meadowlark and the African longclaw, identical looking but completely different genetically — one lives here in the U.S. and the other in Africa. Are they the same species because they look alike? Of course not. This is classic convergent evolution and they are completely different species.
Dan: I agree, Pete. I’d add that these numbers about the percentage of shared DNA can be deceptive. Human beings share 90% of the same DNA as cats. But we have 20,000 genes, and the 2,000 that we have that differ from those of cats not only do remarkably different things but also interact with the other 18,000 genes in remarkably different ways to make us remarkably different from cats.
What are the potential harms of this kind of work that we should worry about?
Dan: With respect to the animals, inserting the genes from an extinct species can have unexpected consequences for the host organisms. The first cloned mammal, Dolly the sheep, for instance, had crippling arthritis. There is a law that applies to both medicine and ecology: You cannot do just one thing. Genes operate in relationship to the rest of the host’s genome, cells and its environment. That means the same genes won’t necessarily function the same way in the newly bred dire wolf as they did in its extinct predecessor and can be harmful to the newly modified organism.
There are also potential threats to human health. What if these new wolves become hosts for a virus, bacterium or parasite that directly infects humans who interact with them? Or becomes caught in a web of interactions between the host species and a carrier like a mosquito or tick that can infect humans? We don’t know the consequences of human interaction with them.
Pete: I believe the authors here are pushing the interpretations of what these experiments represent and potentially sending some dangerous messages to the public. It borders on disinformation to me to argue these are dire wolves. The latter also has the danger of creating the impression to the public, a public that already has issues with trust in science, that it’s OK to let species go extinct, we can always just bring them back. That’s very dangerous.
Some scientists advocate for using this technology to help bolster the populations of endangered species and diversify their gene pools. What are the potential effects of releasing genetically engineered species into the wild?
Pete: At some level, this is not so different from breeding dogs. We’re genetically engineering when we breed cocker spaniels with poodles to make cockapoos, for instance. We do it all the time: genetically modified or hybridized organisms have been around long enough to observe that they don’t typically wreak havoc on ecosystems, like sun-resistant coffee or tastier apples.
As we hybridize and mix different varieties that vary genetically, phylogenetically and morphologically, we’re already artificially mixing genes. There shouldn’t be any unique risk for releasing this genetically engineered gray wolf, which is what’s happening in this case. An example I’m looking forward to is genetically modifying and releasing malaria-resistant mosquitoes!
Dan: But there is also the potential, perhaps not with this newly bred animal, but with others genetically engineered in the future, of some sort of unforeseen consequence such as a survival advantage that causes the new organism to overrun an environment and crowd out other species. Think of kudzu and the gypsy moth in the U.S. or rabbits or the cane toad in Australia. Genetic engineering is not yet so precise with easily predictable consequences. We should always be careful to assess for potential risks before releasing these organisms into the wild.
