De-extinction, the genetic engineering practice of resurrecting extinct species, sounds like a good idea. Surely, in this era of biodiversity loss – and Australia in particular is going through an extinction crisis – bringing back extinct species is ethically responsible and ecologically sound?

While that may appear to be a laudable goal, de-extinction will do nothing to address the extinction crisis, or solve the increasing loss of biodiversity. Indeed, de-extinction does not actually resurrect long-dead species, but simply provide high tech substitutes of the real thing.

Let’s sort this out.

Ancient DNA has achieved a kind of celebrity status of its own. Along with time travel, splitting the atom, and interplanetary travel, ancient DNA has provided the basis for Hollywood blockbusters, the most famous being the Jurassic Park movie franchise. Setting movie-making to one side, can extinct species be brought back to life from ancient DNA? This is where the topic of de-extinction comes in.

What is de-extinction?

De-extinction is not a new idea; it tracks back to scientific projects in the 1970s aiming to freeze the DNA, tissues, blood and reproductive cells from endangered animals with the hope of one day resurrecting them. The simple definition is that de-extinction is a form of species revivalism – cloning or generating an organism that revives or resembles an individual from an extinct species.

The extinction crisis, and declining biodiversity, are very real problems. Human economic activity, extractive capitalism, logging, mining, overexploitation of marine resources – all these practices are driving more species to extinction.

These issues require urgent political and economic solutions, and the genomics industry has stepped up to the plate with a seemingly simple solution based on the latest technology – de-extinction. Surely, the morally responsible thing to do would be to restore species that we have driven to extinction?

Gene-editing technology already stirs up ethical and political controversies. Colossal Biosciences, the genomics company that had previously announced their intention to revive the woolly mammoth, grandly proclaimed that they had de-extincted the dire wolf, a long-extinct canine species native to the Americas.

However, what they have brought back is a gene-edited version of a gray wolf with some dire wolf characteristics. That is an impressive feat of gene editing technology, but it is not de-extinction. Editing the genomic makeup of the gray wolf, the closest living relative to the dire wolf, and making specific modifications to its makeup is very clever, but it is creating a high tech replacement, not reviving the real thing.

Geneticists extracted ancient DNA from the preserved remains of the dire wolf, and then sequenced the entire genome. They compared the dire wolf genome with that of three gray wolf, identified multiple locations which were the genetic origins of key differences with the gray wolf.

The gray wolf genes were then edited (the single nucleotide polymorphisms were modified) to correspond to the distinctive characteristics of the dire wolf. From these cells, embryos were created, which developed into the three pups, which while born from a gray wolf, exhibit characteristics of the dire wolf.

That is all fascinating, and raises questions regarding the ethical implications of editing the genetic sequences of animals. But they are not dire wolves. They are not a resurrection of the extinct canine species. How does a species arise? Well, I seem to recollect that an English naturalist wrote an entire book on the topic back in 1859…..

The thylacine is a top candidate for de-extinction in Australia. The Tasmanian Tiger, as it is popularly known, is an extinct Australian marsupial. Hunted to extinction, there are those who would like to revive this species.

It is interesting to note that the debate around resurrecting the thylacine gets recycled with monotonous regularity in the Australian media, but the actual genocidal violence against the indigenous population of Tasmania still struggles to be recognised as a valid topic for national attention. No, I am certainly not suggesting that the indigenous nations of Tasmania are equivalent to mammalian wildlife – by no means.

I am just pointing out the recrudescence of nationalistic fervour underlying the ‘bring back the Tassie Tiger’ debate. That concern for life apparently does not extend to the indigenous peoples, who have been falsely accused of having been completely exterminated by the British.

That the British settlers ruthlessly eliminated the indigenous nations is not in doubt. What is false is the myth that with the passing of Truganini was the last ‘full-blooded’ indigenous person left in Tasmania. While she was one of the last speakers of indigenous Tasmanian languages, she was not the last Palawa Tasmanian person.

Be that as it may, the revival of the thylacine may seem like an ecologically responsible course of action, but there are many unanswered questions. How will the ‘new’ copy survive? Will it adapt to the radically altered landscape? After all, the hunting of the thylacine did not occur in a vacuum, but was part of the larger ecological effort to convert land into pastoral grazing territory for cattle and sheep.

Can a restored ‘thylacine’ reproduce? You may certainly be able to de-extinct individuals, but how will they adapt to the wider ecosystem?

Back in 2016, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature developed guidelines for the revival of species. It noted that while de-extinction has marketing appeal, none of the gene editing technologies will reproduce an exact replica of the extinct animal. Indeed, the IUN does not use the word ‘de-extinction’ in the title of its guidelines.

It is very true that Australians want to do more to protect nature. Currently, there are now 2000 threatened species and ecological communities in Australia. We need to strengthen the laws that protect natural habitats, stop land clearing, and implement a federal environmental protection agency. We need more research into and programmes for controlling invasive species.

We are not going to address the extinction crisis by the methods of gene editing technology. De-extinction, while an important genomic development, is a distraction from the important national conversation we should be having about reversing the damaging economic and industrial practices which result in the loss of biodiversity.