The US company, Colossal Biosciences, is claiming to have brought back an extinct species, the ‘dire wolf’. This species (Canis dirus) became extinct over 10,000 years ago and is not directly related to the recent grey wolf. Ultimately, however, Colossal has created nothing more than a genetically engineered grey wolf whose genome has been altered at 20 target sites. Among other things, the genetically engineered wolf is larger and has a modified coat. Numerous media reports correctly point out that this is by no means an extinct species that has been brought back to life. At the same time, the environmental risks are left aside.
The Colossal business model is based on bringing extinct animals back to life, e.g. the woolly mammoth or the ‘dire wolf’. In reality, the company only adds new gene variants to the gene pool of existing living beings (e.g. Asian elephants or grey wolves). In result, these animals are ultimately ‘transgenic’, i.e. their genetic material contains characteristics that are foreign to the species. They are a new generation of transgenic animals that are completely new to existing ecosystems.
If the genetically engineered wolves were to escape and mate with their wild counterparts, they could become a threat to the population of grey wolves. The genetically engineered wolves are said to be larger and stronger than their male competitors, and could therefore become dominant in the pack. Their offspring would be hybrids that could also possibly spread rapidly. The business model of resurrecting extinct species would thus endanger existing species.
The invention of CRISPR/Cas gene scissors and ‘new genetic engineering’ (NGTs) appears to have also reframed the debate on environmental risks. Even though many of the media reports were highly critical of the exaggerated Colossal claims in regard to the ‘dire wolf’, none appeared to mention the risks to biodiversity. This may be due to targeted strategic communication of the stakeholders involved. In recent years, the focus of the debate on the release of genetically engineered organisms has shifted away from the risks towards the potential benefits.
However, once you leave the discourse ‘bubble’ surrounding genetic engineering, things start to look a little different. When ecologists speak out, at least some of them come to completely different conclusions than the scientists working in biotech. The lack of awareness about the risks involved in genetically engineering wild species is so worrying that some ecologists have now launched their own petition on the risks.
The background: the EU is planning to allow NGT plants to be marketed without mandatory risk assessment, including wild plants. NGT animals could quickly follow. The condition: NGT plants must not have more than 20 genetic changes. The above example of the genetically engineered wolf shows that this number has simply been pulled out of thin air with regard to the risks. In this case, 20 genetic changes were sufficient to bring about the expression of the new traits previously absent in the species.
Also in the case of NGT plants, it is known that far less than 20 genetic changes can be sufficient to generate new characteristics that go beyond the spectrum of known characteristics of the species, e.g. in poplar, tomato, rice, wheat and camelina. Just because these plants are not regarded as ‘transgenic’ in the classical sense does not mean that they are harmless. The EU should therefore take the genetically engineered wolf as an opportunity to revise its concept for the regulation of NGT plants.
Contact:
Christoph Then, info@testbiotech.org, Tel + 49 151 54638040
Further information:
One of the news reports on the ‚dire wolf‘
Petition against genetic engineering in wild plants
Testbiotech report on genetically engineered animals
Recent news item on the future regulation of NGT plants in the EU