A plan to revive the extinct Moa has sparked debate - and excitement - among experts.
US company Colossal Bioscience has partnered with Ngai Tahu in a $50 million project to revive the flightless bird through gene editing and surrogate hatching.
Thylacine Integrated Genomic Restoration Research Laboratory head Andrew Pask says bringing the moa back could help fix many of the environmental issues impacting New Zealand.
"It's one of those species that we've lost due to humans coming into an environment - but these species were so critically important in maintaining the ecosystems which they came from."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks be follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Exciting a new project backed by Sir Peter Jackson, working
alongside US biotech firm Colossal, also Canterbury Museum and Nitohu.
They are planning to bring back the South Island Giant
mhor It's incredibly exciting and we are delighted to be
joined by the head of Thylacine Integrated Genomic Restoration Research Lab,
Professor Andrew Pascu's on the line now, Professor, Very good
(00:40):
afternoon to you.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Now, how just off the bat, how fun is your job?
It must be awesome to be involved in such exciting
projects like that, truly.
Speaker 5 (00:51):
You know, like these are the coolest projects you could
ever do. But then the impacts that they have for
conservation and restoring lost species to our planet and by diversity,
it just you couldn't do anything better.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
And more meaningful. I think I may be a little biased.
I do think it's pretty amazing.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
Why the more over all the other species you could
bring back? Is this the great Sir Peter Jackson influencing
you on this one?
Speaker 3 (01:17):
I mean it is.
Speaker 5 (01:18):
I mean, it's truly an iconic bird of New Zealand,
of course, But you know, again, it's one of these
species that we've lost due to humans coming into an environment.
But these species that were so critically important in maintaining
ecosystems which they came from. So you know, moas were vegetarians,
but they were great disperses of seed. There's whole species
of trees and bushes that don't thrive anymore because we've
(01:41):
lost the moa. There's really good reasons, you know why
bringing the moa back could help fix a lot of
the environmental issues that are happening, as well as learning
much much more about bird genetics and how to save
so many of the other endangered species in New Zealand
as well, that you know, facing a similar fate to
the moa, that they're going to go extinct within a
certain number of years.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
Well, when you say that it will help the ecosystem,
I guess does that mean eventually the plan would be
to have enough of them to let them out into
the wild.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
Well, initially they're going to be in very large, you know,
natural parts of the landscape that they would roam. But
if they were to be able to, you know, cause
really great habitat restoration. Absolutely, and that's certainly what we're
trying to do with the thylacine project as well. The
end goal of bringing back the Tasmanian tiger is that
you can put that animal back into the environment where
it played such an important role and that helps with
(02:35):
all the conservation of the other plant and animal species
within that ecosystem.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
Now bring it back to New Zealand, how close are
you to producing the living more? Where will the work
be done and what are the key scientific hurdles that
are still ahead of you.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
Yeah, I think there's a lot of work to be
done obviously still and it will be done through New Zealand.
We're doing some work here in Melbourne in Australia, and
then obviously a lot of it in Colossal Biosciences in Dallas.
But really, you know, understanding much more about bird genomics
is the first key. We're still trying to figure out
how we can do good gene editing in.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Birds and make birds that you know, we.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
Can manipulate their DNA that has lots of really important
outcomes for bird conservation.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
So we need to develop that technology.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
But then we've got some fairly decent DNA, it looks
like from some of the MOA bone specimens. Really sequencing
the entire MOA genome is the first job, but you
can learn incredible information about that bird species just by
looking at its DNA as well. So there'd be lots
of really exciting breakthroughs that happen along the way where
(03:42):
we learn more and more about how incredible these species
were working all the way through to being able to
bring these species back.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
So, Professor, is it a similar situation You mentioned the
Tasmanian tiger and obviously colossal made headlines around the world
with the dire wolf, is that the same process or effectively,
because it's a bird species, you have to start from
from the start.
Speaker 5 (04:05):
Yeah, well we do have to start from the start,
but that it is same process. So the way we
do it is, once we have the full MOA genome,
we to identify what it's closest living relative is. At
the moment, the closest living relative looks to be like
a chicken sized bird called a tinamou, and they're mostly
found in South America and Central America little tinamus, but
(04:27):
they're the ones that you would then use as your
host if you like, for doing this project. So we
still can't you know, create life where there is none.
So you have to start with the cells from the
closest living relative. You compare their DNA code and you
figure out everywhere that they're different, and then you edit
those changes into that animal. So you would edit the
(04:47):
tinamu cells to contain all of the differences that a
moa had, and then at the end of that, you've essentially.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Got a moa cell.
Speaker 5 (04:54):
And then we're working through the process of turning those
cells back into a whole living bird. And there's been
a lot of you know, real advances made on that
front already.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
At Colossal Biosciences, they.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Announced the DODO project a while ago now, and so
as part of that DODO one, they've done a huge
amount of work from figuring out how to get birds
to go undergo genetic engineering, how to produce these genetically
engineered birds, and then actually get them into an egg
to then actually form a viable animal at the end
of it as well. So it's really good being able
to jump onto the progress it's already been made on
(05:28):
the MAA progress of project. And yeah, like I said,
also all the conservation outcomes that we can do for
endangered bird species with that technology right.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Now is really fantastic as well.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
So you're starting with potentially starting with the small bird,
but you're going for the big more, right, You're going
for the biggest one. You can the biggest species the
giants South Island three point eight meter high more.
Speaker 5 (05:49):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right on that.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
I mean that was the turkey size moa. Yeah right,
But I don't feel like that.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Will capture people's imaginations quite the same.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
What do you said on this controversy around the moa,
Because you know, when they first found the bones, they
put it with an upright head, didn't they to try
and get it as tall tall as possible? But it's
more likely that the head would sit like an emu's
head with that sort of curve.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
Here. This is funny, right, This is the most controversially
debated aspect of when we talk about moabiology in our.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
Group in Genely, that we talk about all the time.
Speaker 5 (06:32):
And you know, people are either avid they held their
heads up right or they probably had to be in
front of them.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
But I just say, way till we extinct it, and
let's see what it does.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
Yeah, wow, that'll be really that question will be answered.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
That's great to know exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Yeah, as a layman a professor, eight years, that seems
like an incredibly short amount of time. Has that been
optimistic or is that actually doable?
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (06:57):
Well, I think, you know, we're looking at a similar
timeframe for the tastemaking Tiger projects. I think because there's
already been a lot of development of technologies with the
other DODO extinction.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Projects we've actually so.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
We're quite a way along that pathway of figuring out
what it is we need to do and how we
need to do it, you know, and these projects ten
years ago were unthinkable. The technology has come so far
in the last ten years that today the extinction is,
you know, a thing that will happen.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
It's just a matter of exactly what those timeframes are.
Speaker 5 (07:25):
But it's you know, even more feasible that we have
big technological advancements in the next five or so years
that make that process even quicker. So I do think
eight years is a very reasonable time frame for us
to have engineered our MOA cells.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
And so yeah, watch this space.
Speaker 5 (07:40):
Hopefully we have a MOA coming to a place near you.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Very soon.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
Now, what do you say to people who say that
what you're doing is not de extinctifying the MOA, but
creating a sort of a MOA proxy.
Speaker 5 (07:55):
Yeah, so I think there are definitely different ways of
going about de extinction, but these sorts of projects of
the Tasmanian tiger for the MOA, we're actually looking at
making every single difference in that animal's GenAm so really
engineering that animal back into existence, and at that point
really is no longer a proxy for that species, It
(08:15):
really is that species. Like with the Tasmanian tiger, for example,
the animal that we end up creating will be as
similar as any Tasmanian tiger was to any other Tasmanian tiger.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
In that population, there'll be ninety nine.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
Point nine nine percent identical, which is about the same
as you and I would have through our DNA for example.
So at that point, you know you have really recreated
that species so they.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
Could be breeding. You can, you could make a breeding
population of more.
Speaker 5 (08:43):
That would absolutely be the what we would be trying
to do here, because yeah, it's very expensive to do
these as you can imagine, takes them very long time.
So if they can't breed, we're in real trab We
certainly can't do it if we time we need one.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Yeah, now, Professor, there's there's been a few people in
New Zealand, academics and whatnot who have come out this
morning on this news and fear to say me and
Mett do not agree with what Love said. But how
do you respond to those critics who argue the extinction
diverts resources from saving engaged species that are still around today.
Speaker 5 (09:16):
I think now we've done enough work in this field
to show that that just is not correct at all.
Like we've brought more money to conservation biology than has
ever been in this arena before. And the thing I
love about it the most is this money hasn't come
from any of those conservation foundations.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
They're still doing their work.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
And we still need them to because you know, we
can recreate species. I can bring back a Tasmanian tiger,
but if the habitat's gone, if there isn't that classic
conservation work still happening, there's still nowhere to put that animal,
So we need everybody working together. This has done wonders
for conservation and really increases the way that we can
(09:52):
address conservation from a genetic perspectives like, and that's something
we absolutely just have to embrace. Today.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
We've changed the world around our animals.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
So quickly that now we need to do this genetic
intervention to bring back species that have been lost, but
also for ones that are still here to help them
face climate change or invasive pest species. This is the
only way that we can save species now is by
doing some of this work. So it's a completely different
pot of money, and it's brought more good to conservations
(10:24):
than we could ever have done without it.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
Speaking of pots of money, Sir Peter Jackson a great
New Zealander and a fantastic nerd Are you expecting her
to be pisting around the lab looking over your shoulder
and asking questions?
Speaker 5 (10:38):
I have had the absolute extreme pleasure of being able
to spend hours and hours with Peter through this project,
and he just loves the science, honestly, Like it's incredible
to be able to talk to him about, you know,
what our DNA editing strategy is or whatever, and he
just he just sits there and listens and asks the
most incredible questions about it. He's just such an intelligent
(11:01):
human and really passionate conservationist.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Really cares about New Zealand birds in particular.
Speaker 5 (11:08):
You know, he's just he's such a great person to
have involved in the project.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
I have all the time in the world for Peter.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Now in the world of movies, remaining in the world
of movies, the question that has to be asked with
a Jurassic Park currently topping the box office, Yeah, will
we ever get the dinosaurs back?
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Look, I'm a huge Jurassic Park fan.
Speaker 5 (11:31):
In fact, my office at work is full of Jurassic
Park paraphernalia. But the spoiler is there's no DNA left
in any of the dinosaur specimens. DNA only lasts a
few million years, so sixty million years back, it just
isn't there.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
So I hate to burst people's buttle on this because
you know, we.
Speaker 5 (11:50):
All we all love dinosaurs, but it's just not feasible.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Unfortunately.
Speaker 4 (11:55):
Well, as a fan of Jurassic Park, you will have
asked yourself the doctor Ian Malcolm question, chicking that you're
not preoccupied with whether you could and have asked a
question whether you should.
Speaker 5 (12:07):
Yeah, so I get that one all the time, but
I always go you know, as scientist, all we ever
ask is the weather you should like the weather you
could we passed that ages ago. I'm like, this should
is what we you know, really pain over all the time.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
And I think this is a really good conversation around
the extinction technology. I think we should.
Speaker 5 (12:25):
Definitely do it, but we need to set limits around
how far back we want to bring species back, when
and where we want to use this technology. And I
think there are clear conservation reasons for using this.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
The moa is a really great example of that.
Speaker 5 (12:39):
But then the other species where we go, actually we
don't want to do that to those ones. So I
welcome those conversations around the thoughtful use of this technology
to really better our planet.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Professor, you have been fantastic to check too. We can
hear the enthusiasm and excitement and your voice. You've excited
most of New Zealand, I've got to say with this project,
So thanks very much with us pleasure that is hit
of Thilocene Integrated Genomic Restoration Research LAIR Professor Andrew Pesk,
How great was the enthusiasm.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
I love this text.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
We will have moers walking the earth again before we
get a second crossing of the Auckland Harbor.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
For more from News Talks at b listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks be follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Exciting a new project backed by Sir Peter Jackson, working
alongside US biotech firm Colossal, also Canterbury Museum and Nitohu.
They are planning to bring back the South Island Giant
mhor It's incredibly exciting and we are delighted to be
joined by the head of Thylacine Integrated Genomic Restoration Research Lab,
Professor Andrew Pascu's on the line now, Professor, Very good
(00:40):
afternoon to you.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
Now, how just off the bat, how fun is your job?
It must be awesome to be involved in such exciting
projects like that, truly.
Speaker 5 (00:51):
You know, like these are the coolest projects you could
ever do. But then the impacts that they have for
conservation and restoring lost species to our planet and by diversity,
it just you couldn't do anything better.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
And more meaningful. I think I may be a little biased.
I do think it's pretty amazing.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
Why the more over all the other species you could
bring back? Is this the great Sir Peter Jackson influencing
you on this one?
Speaker 3 (01:17):
I mean it is.
Speaker 5 (01:18):
I mean, it's truly an iconic bird of New Zealand,
of course, But you know, again, it's one of these
species that we've lost due to humans coming into an environment.
But these species that were so critically important in maintaining
ecosystems which they came from. So you know, moas were vegetarians,
but they were great disperses of seed. There's whole species
of trees and bushes that don't thrive anymore because we've
(01:41):
lost the moa. There's really good reasons, you know why
bringing the moa back could help fix a lot of
the environmental issues that are happening, as well as learning
much much more about bird genetics and how to save
so many of the other endangered species in New Zealand
as well, that you know, facing a similar fate to
the moa, that they're going to go extinct within a
certain number of years.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
Well, when you say that it will help the ecosystem,
I guess does that mean eventually the plan would be
to have enough of them to let them out into
the wild.
Speaker 5 (02:12):
Well, initially they're going to be in very large, you know,
natural parts of the landscape that they would roam. But
if they were to be able to, you know, cause
really great habitat restoration. Absolutely, and that's certainly what we're
trying to do with the thylacine project as well. The
end goal of bringing back the Tasmanian tiger is that
you can put that animal back into the environment where
it played such an important role and that helps with
(02:35):
all the conservation of the other plant and animal species
within that ecosystem.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
Now bring it back to New Zealand, how close are
you to producing the living more? Where will the work
be done and what are the key scientific hurdles that
are still ahead of you.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
Yeah, I think there's a lot of work to be
done obviously still and it will be done through New Zealand.
We're doing some work here in Melbourne in Australia, and
then obviously a lot of it in Colossal Biosciences in Dallas.
But really, you know, understanding much more about bird genomics
is the first key. We're still trying to figure out
how we can do good gene editing in.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Birds and make birds that you know, we.
Speaker 5 (03:13):
Can manipulate their DNA that has lots of really important
outcomes for bird conservation.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
So we need to develop that technology.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
But then we've got some fairly decent DNA, it looks
like from some of the MOA bone specimens. Really sequencing
the entire MOA genome is the first job, but you
can learn incredible information about that bird species just by
looking at its DNA as well. So there'd be lots
of really exciting breakthroughs that happen along the way where
(03:42):
we learn more and more about how incredible these species
were working all the way through to being able to
bring these species back.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
So, Professor, is it a similar situation You mentioned the
Tasmanian tiger and obviously colossal made headlines around the world
with the dire wolf, is that the same process or effectively,
because it's a bird species, you have to start from
from the start.
Speaker 5 (04:05):
Yeah, well we do have to start from the start,
but that it is same process. So the way we
do it is, once we have the full MOA genome,
we to identify what it's closest living relative is. At
the moment, the closest living relative looks to be like
a chicken sized bird called a tinamou, and they're mostly
found in South America and Central America little tinamus, but
(04:27):
they're the ones that you would then use as your
host if you like, for doing this project. So we
still can't you know, create life where there is none.
So you have to start with the cells from the
closest living relative. You compare their DNA code and you
figure out everywhere that they're different, and then you edit
those changes into that animal. So you would edit the
(04:47):
tinamu cells to contain all of the differences that a
moa had, and then at the end of that, you've essentially.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
Got a moa cell.
Speaker 5 (04:54):
And then we're working through the process of turning those
cells back into a whole living bird. And there's been
a lot of you know, real advances made on that
front already.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
At Colossal Biosciences, they.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
Announced the DODO project a while ago now, and so
as part of that DODO one, they've done a huge
amount of work from figuring out how to get birds
to go undergo genetic engineering, how to produce these genetically
engineered birds, and then actually get them into an egg
to then actually form a viable animal at the end
of it as well. So it's really good being able
to jump onto the progress it's already been made on
(05:28):
the MAA progress of project. And yeah, like I said,
also all the conservation outcomes that we can do for
endangered bird species with that technology right.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Now is really fantastic as well.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
So you're starting with potentially starting with the small bird,
but you're going for the big more, right, You're going
for the biggest one. You can the biggest species the
giants South Island three point eight meter high more.
Speaker 5 (05:49):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right on that.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
I mean that was the turkey size moa. Yeah right,
But I don't feel like that.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
Will capture people's imaginations quite the same.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
What do you said on this controversy around the moa,
Because you know, when they first found the bones, they
put it with an upright head, didn't they to try
and get it as tall tall as possible? But it's
more likely that the head would sit like an emu's
head with that sort of curve.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
Here. This is funny, right, This is the most controversially
debated aspect of when we talk about moabiology in our.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
Group in Genely, that we talk about all the time.
Speaker 5 (06:32):
And you know, people are either avid they held their
heads up right or they probably had to be in
front of them.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
But I just say, way till we extinct it, and
let's see what it does.
Speaker 4 (06:41):
Yeah, wow, that'll be really that question will be answered.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
That's great to know exactly.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Yeah, as a layman a professor, eight years, that seems
like an incredibly short amount of time. Has that been
optimistic or is that actually doable?
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (06:57):
Well, I think, you know, we're looking at a similar
timeframe for the tastemaking Tiger projects. I think because there's
already been a lot of development of technologies with the
other DODO extinction.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Projects we've actually so.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
We're quite a way along that pathway of figuring out
what it is we need to do and how we
need to do it, you know, and these projects ten
years ago were unthinkable. The technology has come so far
in the last ten years that today the extinction is,
you know, a thing that will happen.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
It's just a matter of exactly what those timeframes are.
Speaker 5 (07:25):
But it's you know, even more feasible that we have
big technological advancements in the next five or so years
that make that process even quicker. So I do think
eight years is a very reasonable time frame for us
to have engineered our MOA cells.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
And so yeah, watch this space.
Speaker 5 (07:40):
Hopefully we have a MOA coming to a place near you.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Very soon.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
Now, what do you say to people who say that
what you're doing is not de extinctifying the MOA, but
creating a sort of a MOA proxy.
Speaker 5 (07:55):
Yeah, so I think there are definitely different ways of
going about de extinction, but these sorts of projects of
the Tasmanian tiger for the MOA, we're actually looking at
making every single difference in that animal's GenAm so really
engineering that animal back into existence, and at that point
really is no longer a proxy for that species, It
(08:15):
really is that species. Like with the Tasmanian tiger, for example,
the animal that we end up creating will be as
similar as any Tasmanian tiger was to any other Tasmanian tiger.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
In that population, there'll be ninety nine.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
Point nine nine percent identical, which is about the same
as you and I would have through our DNA for example.
So at that point, you know you have really recreated
that species so they.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
Could be breeding. You can, you could make a breeding
population of more.
Speaker 5 (08:43):
That would absolutely be the what we would be trying
to do here, because yeah, it's very expensive to do
these as you can imagine, takes them very long time.
So if they can't breed, we're in real trab We
certainly can't do it if we time we need one.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Yeah, now, Professor, there's there's been a few people in
New Zealand, academics and whatnot who have come out this
morning on this news and fear to say me and
Mett do not agree with what Love said. But how
do you respond to those critics who argue the extinction
diverts resources from saving engaged species that are still around today.
Speaker 5 (09:16):
I think now we've done enough work in this field
to show that that just is not correct at all.
Like we've brought more money to conservation biology than has
ever been in this arena before. And the thing I
love about it the most is this money hasn't come
from any of those conservation foundations.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
They're still doing their work.
Speaker 5 (09:32):
And we still need them to because you know, we
can recreate species. I can bring back a Tasmanian tiger,
but if the habitat's gone, if there isn't that classic
conservation work still happening, there's still nowhere to put that animal,
So we need everybody working together. This has done wonders
for conservation and really increases the way that we can
(09:52):
address conservation from a genetic perspectives like, and that's something
we absolutely just have to embrace. Today.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
We've changed the world around our animals.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
So quickly that now we need to do this genetic
intervention to bring back species that have been lost, but
also for ones that are still here to help them
face climate change or invasive pest species. This is the
only way that we can save species now is by
doing some of this work. So it's a completely different
pot of money, and it's brought more good to conservations
(10:24):
than we could ever have done without it.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
Speaking of pots of money, Sir Peter Jackson a great
New Zealander and a fantastic nerd Are you expecting her
to be pisting around the lab looking over your shoulder
and asking questions?
Speaker 5 (10:38):
I have had the absolute extreme pleasure of being able
to spend hours and hours with Peter through this project,
and he just loves the science, honestly, Like it's incredible
to be able to talk to him about, you know,
what our DNA editing strategy is or whatever, and he
just he just sits there and listens and asks the
most incredible questions about it. He's just such an intelligent
(11:01):
human and really passionate conservationist.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Really cares about New Zealand birds in particular.
Speaker 5 (11:08):
You know, he's just he's such a great person to
have involved in the project.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
I have all the time in the world for Peter.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Now in the world of movies, remaining in the world
of movies, the question that has to be asked with
a Jurassic Park currently topping the box office, Yeah, will
we ever get the dinosaurs back?
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Look, I'm a huge Jurassic Park fan.
Speaker 5 (11:31):
In fact, my office at work is full of Jurassic
Park paraphernalia. But the spoiler is there's no DNA left
in any of the dinosaur specimens. DNA only lasts a
few million years, so sixty million years back, it just
isn't there.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
So I hate to burst people's buttle on this because
you know, we.
Speaker 5 (11:50):
All we all love dinosaurs, but it's just not feasible.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Unfortunately.
Speaker 4 (11:55):
Well, as a fan of Jurassic Park, you will have
asked yourself the doctor Ian Malcolm question, chicking that you're
not preoccupied with whether you could and have asked a
question whether you should.
Speaker 5 (12:07):
Yeah, so I get that one all the time, but
I always go you know, as scientist, all we ever
ask is the weather you should like the weather you
could we passed that ages ago. I'm like, this should
is what we you know, really pain over all the time.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
And I think this is a really good conversation around
the extinction technology. I think we should.
Speaker 5 (12:25):
Definitely do it, but we need to set limits around
how far back we want to bring species back, when
and where we want to use this technology. And I
think there are clear conservation reasons for using this.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
The moa is a really great example of that.
Speaker 5 (12:39):
But then the other species where we go, actually we
don't want to do that to those ones. So I
welcome those conversations around the thoughtful use of this technology
to really better our planet.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Professor, you have been fantastic to check too. We can
hear the enthusiasm and excitement and your voice. You've excited
most of New Zealand, I've got to say with this project,
So thanks very much with us pleasure that is hit
of Thilocene Integrated Genomic Restoration Research LAIR Professor Andrew Pesk,
How great was the enthusiasm.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
I love this text.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
We will have moers walking the earth again before we
get a second crossing of the Auckland Harbor.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
For more from News Talks at b listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.