Jack Horner and T rex

[PumperKrickel]

i think i remember seeing a documentary about that, in the late 90's perhaps?  It was a bit after Jurassic Park came out because it was referenced a few times in the documentary.  The idea was to reactivate dormant genes in animals that were as closely related to dinosaurs as possible and turn them into, kinda sorta dinosaurs.  They felt they could produce birds with teeth, long tails etc.

One comment from a paleontologist, don't remember who, was that while they would not be able to produce an actual dinosaur with this technique, you could get something like an emu-saurus out of it.  Is that the same thing as the chickenosaurus idea?

Sounds like you saw something about Horner's book "How to Build a Dinosaur", which discusses the theoretical idea of activating and deactivating certain genes to restore dormant dinosaur characteristics such as a tail, claws, teeth, and a snout. It is based on a proposed script for Jurassic Park 4, which would explain why the program you saw referenced the franchise multiple times.

The Chickenosaurus project aims to turn the very same idea into reality, though I have no idea how feasible it is and how questions regarding ethics and legality will be navigated.

[Saarlooswolfhound]

It kinda feels like every major gene editing experiment is usually done for clout or to prove a point than anything applicable.
IIRC, the major finding about this was to see if any non-avian dinosaur genes were still in avian DNA and I think they also did experiments that re-created theropod walking. What that can be gleaned from that, I don't really know.

Yeah it feels like it would have even fewer applications than whatever Colossal is doing since those, at least theoretically, are aimed at rewilding.

For their "dire wolves", I don't think they could ever realistically be a rewilding project. As for their cloned red wolves, they will be or at least will be used as captive breeding stock to boost the population in the wild.

[The Templar of the Past]

It kinda feels like every major gene editing experiment is usually done for clout or to prove a point than anything applicable.
IIRC, the major finding about this was to see if any non-avian dinosaur genes were still in avian DNA and I think they also did experiments that re-created theropod walking. What that can be gleaned from that, I don't really know.

Yeah it feels like it would have even fewer applications than whatever Colossal is doing since those, at least theoretically, are aimed at rewilding.

For their "dire wolves", I don't think they could ever realistically be a rewilding project. As for their cloned red wolves, they will be or at least will be used as captive breeding stock to boost the population in the wild.

I was mainly referring to their ideas about thylacines and mammoths.

And yeah, I seriously doubt that their GMO wolves can serve a different purpose than what regular gray wolves already do.

[Saarlooswolfhound]

They're also working on a project with Peter Jackson to revive the Moa.

And no worries, I just wanted to clarify on the topic of their GMO wolves and the impossibility of their release into the wild.

[andrewsaurus rex]

what are the ethics and legal issues PumperKrickel referred to above and how are they being handled for the Dire wolf pups?

[PumperKrickel]

what are the ethics and legal issues PumperKrickel referred to above and how are they being handled for the Dire wolf pups?

Well, we're talking about fundamental changes to a living organism.

Ethically, should humans alter an animal genetically in order to change it's appearance? We would be creating an entirely unique creature by doing this. Should we do that, just because we can?

Legally, animals have rights. Would they be broken by this project? I'm assuming there are some legal regulations concerning genetic modification. Would this take place in a country without such laws and regulations, or could this ever be done within such limitations?

Now I must admit I haven't followed the project too closely, maybe they've already adressed some of these concerns or maybe my concerns are just results of my ignorance in the subject. Still, I think it's a grotesque idea without much scientific merit.

To me, the "dire wolf" project feels fundamentally different from the Chickenosaurus. Bringing back a species that went extinct fairly recently is, at least in theory, a far more noble endeavour than creating something new merely out of curiosity.

[andrewsaurus rex]

hm......interesting stuff.

As far as altering animals genetically to change their appearance: isn't that what humans have done for centuries with selective breeding of most domesticated animals?  For example dogs.  There were no naturally occurring Saint Bernard's or Golden Retrievers.  They were 'created' by humans through selective breeding which altered their DNA and hence their appearance.  I'm sure it can be argued that the above projects are an entirely different level of genetic manipulation, but the end result is the same, isn't it?  Anyway, i don't have a problem with it, i don't think.  But i could possibly be persuaded otherwise.

One legal issue will no doubt be copyrights, ownership etc., which could be concerning as we know how compassionate corporations can be. Many have knowingly poisoned large human populations in the past, in order to make a buck.  How would they treat animals, i shudder to think?  And i'm sure there are a zillion other potential legal issues.  My concern is the humane treatment and quality of life of the animals created, and experimentation that results in terrible mutations, causing much suffering of the animals created.

Genetic engineering is a dicey issue, like AI...both have amazing potential but both could also be disastrous.

 

[PumperKrickel]

As far as altering animals genetically to change their appearance: isn't that what humans have done for centuries with selective breeding of most domesticated animals?  For example dogs.  There were no naturally occurring Saint Bernard's or Golden Retrievers.  They were 'created' by humans through selective breeding which altered their DNA and hence their appearance.  I'm sure it can be argued that the above projects are an entirely different level of genetic manipulation, but the end result is the same, isn't it?  Anyway, i don't have a problem with it, i don't think.  But i could possibly be persuaded otherwise.

To me, "humans have done similar things for centuries" isn't a particularly good argument. It's not ethical, simply because it's normal. There are countless practices that humans have done for centuries and eventually stopped, when they realized something about it isn't right. Some dog breeds have health issues that significantly lower life expectancy or quality of life - one could argue that creating them was a mistake we should at the very least aim to not repeat.

[stargatedalek]

what are the ethics and legal issues PumperKrickel referred to above and how are they being handled for the Dire wolf pups?

Well, we're talking about fundamental changes to a living organism.

Ethically, should humans alter an animal genetically in order to change it's appearance? We would be creating an entirely unique creature by doing this. Should we do that, just because we can?

Legally, animals have rights. Would they be broken by this project? I'm assuming there are some legal regulations concerning genetic modification. Would this take place in a country without such laws and regulations, or could this ever be done within such limitations?

Now I must admit I haven't followed the project too closely, maybe they've already adressed some of these concerns or maybe my concerns are just results of my ignorance in the subject. Still, I think it's a grotesque idea without much scientific merit.

To me, the "dire wolf" project feels fundamentally different from the Chickenosaurus. Bringing back a species that went extinct fairly recently is, at least in theory, a far more noble endeavour than creating something new merely out of curiosity.

Define "fundamental changes" in a way that excludes goldfish, cows, chickens, pigeons, horses, dogs, and cats, and includes de-extinct animals. Unless you're going to argue all of those are inherently unethical.

It wouldn't be "because we can", it would be "because someone wants to". That's already a better reason than some nebulous chaotic science fairies doing things entirely arbitrarily, but if you need more there are a host of hypothetical applications. Birds with tails could actually reduce the number needed for livestock and have higher amounts of high quality white meat per bird. They could be designed to adapt very well to captivity and replace many, less well suited birds, as pets. They could bring considerable attention to de-extinction as a field, acting as domestic ambassador animals to other projects intended for rewilding, or even be sold as pets to fund those projects. They could reduce the demand for exotic birds and reptiles (especially from kids). What kid would still ask for a parrot or a rare reptile when they could get a dinosaur?

Animals do not have a singular set of rights, they vary depending on the species and region. Nothing about genetically modifying a species inherently requires torturing it, so animal rights are not as relevant as you might assume. They are tertiarily relevant in that a GMO is typically copyrighted property, this doesn't mean they don't have animal rights, but it often means exclusivity which incentivises companies bad behaviour. If they were open-sourced that reduces the risks of abuse to essentially nil, and removes the incentives for corporations to abuse.

No offence but how are people expected to engage in good faith discussion when people enter the topic openly expressing disgust for the very concept?

I disagree, not just for the reasons brought up above, but because there are far simpler ways to go about rewilding. Many of the suggested candidates for de-extinction based rewilding could be replaced with existing species instead. Take as a somewhat abstract (and unintentional) example the passenger pigeon. The passenger pigeons niche has already been filled by introduced rock doves, which (alongside their preference for urban regions) is a big part of why rock doves (in North America) are a non-harmful invasive that (despite people whinging about "property damage" [minor cleanup]) have not outcompeted any native species and even increase the biodiversity of urban areas which is a net positive for the native birds they live alongside. Controlled and highly planned introductions of modern species could likely serve the same roles most of these deextinct rewilding candidates would in much the same way.

I am firmly of the opinion that anyone trying to tell you a deextinct species would be brought back solely for rewilding and never utilized for tourism, other genetic projects by the involved company(ies), or sold to zoos and aquariums, is either a liar, a patsy, or a fool. Frankly it would be silly not to offer them to accredited facilities at the very least, from both a fiscal and scientific perspective.

[Torvosaurus]

Legally, there isn't an issue with creating chicken "dinosaurs". Even pets, that are some of our closest friends, are legally owned by the person that has them, and laws across the states are highly variable concerning their rights. Look at how chickens are raised for grocers, for example. It's not pretty. Altering a chicken as intended really isn't any different than adding jellyfish DNA to create glofish or creating a mouse that has a human ear attached (an intricate design using cow cartilage back in the 1990s or so).

As for the "dire" wolf, they can't release it due to the fact that they are grey wolves and the new traits may be inherited (I'm not to sure about that). I'll tell you right now, either way, no wildlife biologist is going to agree to releasing them. However, they might make a great zoo exhibit. 🙄

As for the ethics, thats a whole other issue. For one thing, this isn't selective breeding; scientists aren't breeding two chickens for traits that can be passed on naturally, sometimes by breeding animals with a recessive gene to achieve a certain trait. They are manipulating the genes of an animal with the intent of creating certain characteristics. This is far more invasive.

Torvo