Sir Peter Jackson backs project to bring back extinct moa
Supplied / Colossal Biosciences
A new project backed by film-maker Sir Peter Jackson aims to bring the extinct South Island giant moa back to life in less than eight years.
Using advanced genetic engineering, iwi Ngāi Tahu, Canterbury Museum, and US biotech firm Colossal Biosciences plan to extract DNA from preserved moa remains to recreate the towering flightless bird.
Senior curator of natural history at Canterbury Museum which holds the largest collection of moa remains in the world, Paul Scofield, says he's optimistic about the collaboration.
He says they hope to eventually have an ecological reserve on Ngāi Tahu land for moa.
The South Island giant moa stood up to 3.6 metres tall, weighed around 230kg and typically lived in forests and shrubbery.
Photo:
Colossal Biosciences chief executive and co-founder Ben Lamm said humans drove the moa to extinction so if technology could help bring it back and contribute to saving other existing species as well as inspire children it would be "the holy grail".
Ngāi Tahu Research Centre would effectively be like a board of directors for the project, he told
Morning Report
.
While the business worked with conservationists and indigenous groups all over the world, "we've never had this level of cultural immersion before ... the excitement here at Colossal is just palpable."
The project had only just started, however, he was confident that within a decade a moa hatchling would be a reality "and back on this planet".
"I hope it's closer to five or six [years] ... worst case ten, but it's still miraculous in terms of that technology curve."
Ngāi Tahu Research Centre would be the owners of the moa and would have a full input into everything being done.
The habitat still existed that the moa would live in, however, "we don't expect them to be running through Christchurch."
He was 100 percent confident moa would become a reality because the tools and technology existed.
"We're just advancing them further."
Sir Peter Jackson who is funding the project said he had assumed years ago that many scientific wonders would become a reality in his lifetime.
However, it hasn't happened and he was impressed with the work of Colossal Biosciences which "has rekindled my hope for the future", he said on the company's website.
Scofield, told
Morning Report
the project was "an astonishing opportunity".
The US firm was world-leading in its field and was also trying to bring back the woolly mammoth, the dodo, the Tasmanian tiger and other extinct animals.
It was making "astonishing leaps on an almost daily basis".
The museum's main role was to ensure the project was Māori-led. It was working with the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre at the University of Canterbury and also ensuring all the concerns of Māori were addressed.
"The research will actually benefit Māori economically in creating a vast ecological reserve on Māori land where moa are actually are able to be seen."
The necessary DNA would come partly from the remains at the museum but also from freshly excavated material.
The latter would be better quality because some of the former had been stored for 160 years.
"We're hoping the combination of freshly excavated material and the collections themselves will enable us to have the genetic resources we require for this project."
The process was called de-extinction because thousands of genes would need to be identified covering the moa's size, brain capacity, feathers, colour, eyesight and other characteristics.
Then a related living species would be used as a genetic surrogate.
"Doing things that have effectively never been done before outside the human genome to actually recreate animals that are actually to all intents and purposes are exactly analagous to the extinct species."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
What went wrong with MethaneSat – and who should answer for it?
New Zealand's first publicly funded space mission has ended with a lost satellite and a debate about how we spend our money in space, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. A sudden silence in orbit When MethaneSat lost contact last month, it marked an abrupt end to New Zealand's first publicly funded space mission – and a major setback for local climate science. The satellite, part of an international effort led by the US Environmental Defense Fund, was designed to 'name and shame' major methane polluters. As The Guardian's Veronika Meduna explains, MethaneSat's main focus was on detecting methane leaks from oil and gas production worldwide; the New Zealand-led side project tracked methane release from agriculture, which accounts for almost half of our greenhouse gas emissions. Meduna reports that in total New Zealand contributed NZ$32 million to the mission – $3m more than the figure widely quoted in last week's headlines. Apportioning blame The questions now are less about whether MethaneSat was a good idea and more about whether its problems should have been spotted sooner. Soon after launch, the satellite faced repeated technical issues, including difficulties with its thrusters and unexpected shutdowns caused by solar activity. Nicholas Rattenbury, Auckland University associate professor of physics, points out that 'the principle of caveat emptor is true for spacecraft as much as it is for purchasing a car'. While NZ was not involved in the design and testing, 'we were certainly entitled to relevant information to make a fully informed decision on whether or not to invest'. His colleague, astrophysicist Richard Easther, suggests NZ needs to shoulder some of the blame. Speaking to the Sunday Star Times' Jonathan Killick (paywalled), Easther argues local checks on the satellite's design and readiness were too light, especially given the 'major problems' that became clear long before contact was lost. All experts seem to agree that New Zealand may have relied too much on assurances from overseas partners instead of independent reviews. It's one of the main questions that the postmortem, when it comes, will have to answer. Space agency under scrutiny The MethaneSat failure has turned the spotlight on how New Zealand runs its space activities. The New Zealand Space Agency, formed in 2016 and now with Judith Collins as its minister, acts both as regulator and supporter of the sector. Simon Hunt, writing for BERL, describes it as a 'one-stop shop' for space policy and business support, noting its advantage in being 'not burdened down with outdated policies and processes'. But some researchers argue this dual role can be a conflict. As UoA's Priyanka Dhopade and Catherine Qualtrough write in The Conversation, the set-up of the agency risks 'a conflict of interest between promoting sustainability and fostering economic growth'. Sustainability in space is a growing international concern, Dhopade and Qualtrough write. As the amount of debris in space continues to skyrocket (sorry), scientists are also turning their attention to emerging issues like 'ozone depletion from rocket launches and the accumulation of alumina and soot particles in Earth's atmosphere as re-entering objects burn up'. The rise of Rocket Lab While MethaneSat drifts in silence, New Zealand's biggest space player is enjoying a record run. Rocket Lab – officially a US company – is now valued at over NZ$30 billion, with the share price hitting a record high of around US$38 (NZ$63). The Herald's Chris Keall reports (paywalled) that two factors are fuelling Rocket Lab's rise: fallout from SpaceX founder Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump, and the upcoming first test launch of Rocket Lab's 'much larger, crew-capable rocket, the Neutron – which will put it toe to toe with SpaceX for the first time'. But the company's success has also attracted protest, reports The Spinoff's Gabi Lardies. Critics have accused Rocket Lab of enabling military surveillance, including through launches of BlackSky satellites allegedly used by Israel's defence forces. Last Friday Rocket Lab sites were picketed, while Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has referred CEO Peter Beck, Judith Collins and others to the office of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. Beck has dismissed the claims, insisting the company abides by New Zealand law and doesn't launch weapons. Still, the sight of picket lines outside a NZ success story is a reminder that space, like politics, is never free from earthbound controversies.
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Plan to bring back moa for the birds: paleontologist
A plan to bring back the New Zealand moa is a "pipe dream" that will likely never take flight, a prominent Dunedin paleontologist says. Earlier this week, United States-based company Colossal Biosciences announced it aimed to genetically engineer living birds to resemble the extinct South Island giant moa by 2035, and the plan already has support from Hollywood movie director Sir Peter Jackson, Ngāi Tahu and Canterbury Museum. Colossal claims to have already brought back a version of dire wolves, which became extinct 10,000 years ago, and has plans to do the same for the woolly mammoth and the dodo. However, University of Otago paleogenetics lab director and paleontologist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence is not convinced moa can be brought back. "They [Colossal] have come out with a good glossy show and a big splash, but I wouldn't believe any of the hype. There are serious concerns. "They announced a few months ago that they had de-extincted the dire wolf — but they didn't. They created a genetically engineered grey wolf. "So they won't be de-extincting the moa. They will be creating a genetically engineered emu or some other genetically engineered ratite. "It may look like a moa, but we will have no idea whether it functions like a moa or talks like a moa. "It's that quote — if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a duck. "But in this case, it would only look like a moa. "That's as far as it would go. I would say it's still a pipe dream." Prof Rawlence said he also had "serious ethical concerns". The company said the point of de-extinction was for conservation, and the moa would not be released into the wild. "They're going to be in a game reserve for ecotourism opportunities. "But also, if you are going to bring back more than just a zoo animal, then you need to bring back at least 500 individuals for the de-extinct population to be genetically secure and not have effects of inbreeding like you get in the English Royal Family or the Habsburg dynasty. "Will they even be able to breed? We don't know. "And if they could, what are the unintended consequences of inserting moa genes into, say, an emu? "We don't know whether these individuals will be genetically healthy." He said the project would also incur "opportunity costs", where money would get pulled from the conservation of existing endangered animals to fund the moa de-extinction. Potentially, it would further endanger critically endangered species, he said. He also had major concerns about iwi engagement in the project. "So with Ngāi Tahu, they're all the individual rūnanga. "In all of the engagement our lab [the Otago paleogenetics laboratory] has done up and down the motu over the past 10 years or more, including on projects sequencing the genomes of moa, we have found there is no appetite for de-extinction. "We know the individual runanga do not like being told what to do by Ngāi Tahu and Christchurch. "At the top of the South Island, there are also seven iwi that aren't Ngāi Tahu that I also know are dead set against de-extinction." He said one of the major reasons de-extinction was not supported by many rūnanga was whakapapa, or genealogy, which was very important to Māori. "And messing with the whakapapa, messing with the genetic code of animals, is viewed with disgust. They don't want it to happen. "They also have concerns about the opportunity costs, the habitats not being there, who's going to pay to look after all of the de-extinct animals and also around who owns the DNA, who owns the DNA sequence data and concerns around samples going overseas for sequencing." Prof Rawlence said with something this big, there needed to be more than just one research centre calling the shots around supposed Māori approval of this. "What we have here is, for all intents and purposes, the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre saying we're going to bring back a species that used to occur in the South Island, when you have parts of South Island Māoridom against it from within the iwi and from outside of the iwi. "So we really need a South Island-wide consensus discussion for the South Island giant moa. "That's going to be difficult." He said ethically and engagement-wise, Colossal, the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre and Canterbury Museum needed to "come clean" on how widely they had engaged. "Because on the surface, it looks like a captain's call on behalf of all of Ngāi Tahu." He said the technology Colossal had developed could be a "game changer" for conserving animals we had left — such as genetically engineering a kākāpō to be resistant to disease. "I think the money is better spent on conserving animals we have left."
NZ Herald
16 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Moa de-extinction plans: Greens react, say money would be better spent saving living species
Sir Peter Jackson and Colossal Biosciences chief executive Ben Lamm are aiming to bring the moa back from extinction. The Greens have reacted to plans to bring the South Island giant moa back from the dead, saying that the money would be better spent trying to save endangered species. It was revealed today that United States-based Colossal Biosciences, which is also behind de-extinction projects for
