Have you come across A miserable wolf lately? Perhaps you spotted it on the cover of Time Magazine featuring a Giant white wolf or in a photo of “Game of Thrones” author George RR Martin with a puppy? This creature was named after a character from his narrative.
The miserable wolf, a large wolflike species that became extinct around 12,000 years ago, re-entered public discourse when the biotechnology company Colossal claimed to have revived it through cloning and genetic editing techniques. Colossal has positioned itself at the forefront of “de-extinction.” Yet, this concept is rife with controversy, facing accusations of “playing God” and concerns that modern genetic tools may not accurately replicate the original species. Questions about species revival continue to arise.
While the biological and philosophical discussions are compelling, the legal ramifications concerning the conservation of endangered species are crucial. As a Ph.D. legal scholar on wildlife genetics, my focus is on the legal definitions of “endangered species.” The application of biotechnology in conservation can yield solutions through the biomediation or genetic enhancement of endangered species, but it must align with the legal frameworks designed to preserve biodiversity.
The Miserable Wolves and Their Disappearance
What actions have been taken by Colossal? Scientists extracted DNA sequences from Ice Age bones to decipher the genetic structure of miserable wolves, achieving approximately 90% of the complete miserable wolf genome. Though grey and miserable wolves share a lineage that stretches millions of years apart, they have over 99.5% of their genomes in common.
Scientists analyzed the obtained sequences for specific genes believed to distinguish physical and ecological traits of grey wolves from their miserable counterparts. These unique traits, found within the canid lineage, relate to factors like size and coat coloration. Using CRISPR gene-editing technology, scientists can alter certain DNA of living organisms. The Colossal team employed CRISPR to effect 20 changes on 14 genes within modern gray wolf cells before transferring embryos into surrogate mothers.
The technology’s impressiveness raises questions about the nomenclature for the resultant animal. Some critics argue it could be regarded as a modified grey wolf, pointing out that over 20 modifications may be necessary to close the evolutionary gaps spanning millions of years. Notably, a mere 0.5% divergence between the two genomes represents over 12 million base pair variations.
Related: Experts state that Colossal’s depiction of “a miserable wolf” is more fiction than reality
Philosophically speaking, some skeptics contend that species encompass more than mere genes and lack environmental, ecological, or evolutionary context.
Meanwhile, Colossal asserts claims about a “functional redesign”. The company admits it has not created the perfect replica of a miserable wolf but aims to recreate a version resembling those from the past. They analogize, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.”
Debates persist regarding the challenges of classification—the science dedicated to naming and categorizing living organisms. Biologists often struggle to agree on a definitive, clear-cut definition of “species,” encountering numerous competing definitions within biological literature.
Biologists can occasionally afford flexibility in definitions when the discussion remains abstract. However, lawyers and policymakers lack such leniency.
Determining What Constitutes an Endangered “Species”
In the U.S., the Endangered Species Act serves as the primary tool for protecting biodiversity.
For an organism to receive protection under this law, it must be categorized as either an endangered species or a member thereof. Debates surrounding the ESA often grapple with whether species in question are genuine “species” or individual organisms, particularly regarding hybrids among the listed organisms.
The concept of “functional species,” championed by Colossal, raises discomfort concerning the Endangered Species Act. It diminishes the value of a species to its appearance and functionality. However, the legislative intent from Congress stressed that species should be assessed based on “aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific values” for people and their surroundings. Thus, I believe that an overly utilitarian outlook on functionality may overlook the core essence of what defines a species.
Despite contrary claims, Colossal’s attempts at redefining provisions have opened the door for arguments suggesting a reduction in conservation funding or protections for currently at-risk species. As stated by Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgham, the question arises, “Why should you allocate resources for protecting these creatures and their habitats?”
Leveraging Biotechnology for Conservation
Biotechnology holds potential for delivering significant conservation benefits for today’s endangered species. The true merit of gene editing lies not in replicating features of extinct species like the Dire Wolves, but rather in recovering species that are endangered.
Ongoing projects by Colossal and various organizations worldwide aim to support endangered species by developing disease resistance and assisting species to adapt to changing climates. Some projects utilize gene editing technology to reintroduce genetic variations to populations that have lost genetic diversity.
Additionally, Colossal announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the miserable wolves, red wolves are not extinct but are critically endangered. As a result of ongoing conservation initiatives, approximately 12 red wolves persist in the wild in eastern North Carolina, alongside hundreds in captivity.
The entire population of both wild and captive red wolves originates from just 14 founders of the breeding program, resulting in a substantial loss of genetic diversity that is vital for species adaptation and survival.
To expand upon their genetic diversity, genetic material must be sourced from red wolves existing outside controlled populations—tissue samples that may be salvaged from previously “lost” or rediscovered wild populations.
Recently, studies revealed that coyotes along the Gulf Coast of Texas carry a significant proportion of DNA from red wolves within their genomes. This hybridization poses a natural evolutionary challenge for red wolves and complicates their management. However, the red wolf genetic material found in coyotes may offer a potential source for supporting breeding efforts, assuming legal obstacles can be navigated.
This coyote population served as the source for the cloned “ghost” red wolf by Colossal. Yet, even this announcement is clouded by definitional ambiguity. Owing to its hybrid characteristics, the giant clones may not qualify as legal red wolves.
According to the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms typically do not receive protections. Thus, Colossal’s cloning endeavors may have circumvented the need for ESA permits. Resistance is anticipated when attempting to integrate these “ghost wolves” into the existing red wolf breeding program, which has invested decades in minimizing hybridization. Navigating the intricate questions surrounding genetic “purity” and diversity management within species poses significant challenges, particularly amid the ongoing legal uncertainties.
Biotechnology cannot resolve every conservation issue, especially habitat degradation. The capability to create “functional” copies of species does not lessen the urgency to address biodiversity loss, nor does it relieve humanity of its moral responsibilities. To effectively tackle the ever-pressing biodiversity crisis, conservationists require every available tool.
This modified article has been republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. For further reading, please refer to the original article.
Source: www.livescience.com