Scientists say they've made a breakthrough in efforts to bring back the extinct Tasmanian tiger
they say its possum to do it
they say its possum to do it
If you dunnart know they were bringing back the thylacine
- Thread starter Daktari JG
- Start date
biggest_dreamer
Well-Known Member
I feel like this headline drops roughly once a year. I'll believe it when I see it.
The reliability of that article is, of course, called very much into question by the suggestion that the Fat-tailed Dunnart is "the closest living relative of the Tasmanian tiger" 
by definition, as extant dasyurids are classified within an entirely different family to the thylacine, all members of the family hold equal right to the title.
Even if it were accurate, you'd be hard-pushed to find a less suitable surrogate given the disparate sizes!
by definition, as extant dasyurids are classified within an entirely different family to the thylacine, all members of the family hold equal right to the title.Even if it were accurate, you'd be hard-pushed to find a less suitable surrogate given the disparate sizes!
Antimony96
Well-Known Member
See also: "we will have woolly mammoths in 5 years"
I would imagine the reason they aren't using a Tasmanian Devil or a quoll is due to legal protection of those two? By contrast, the Fat-tailed Dunnart is more easily obtained and not subject to any special legal protection - it's even possible to find them in the pet trade in Australia!The reliability of that article is, of course, called very much into question by the suggestion that the Fat-tailed Dunnart is "the closest living relative of the Tasmanian tiger"
Even if it were accurate, you'd be hard-pushed to find a less suitable surrogate given the disparate sizes!
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
What’s next, scientists will have recreated the loch ness monster? Edit- This is meant as a joke btw, I heavily doubt we could see this
Last edited:
The rare Northern king white winged long tailed ring necked hooded red ruddy and harlequin duck
The thing about articles like this is that the way it's presented here is complete nonsense. However there is actually some quite interesting work that the reporters have turned into a sensational news article.
They managed to extract and sequence RNA from a preserved specimen and have used this to learn about thylacine biology and improve upon the genome sequence that was published in 2018. Here's the recent paper published last year Historical RNA expression profiles from the extinct Tasmanian tiger - PMC
And there's also a decent commentary piece for a more general audience https://www.science.org/content/article/rna-recovered-tasmanian-tiger-first-extinct-animal (where, incidentally, they note that they are not doing this to try and extinct it)
Sequencing ancient DNA to get genome sequences of extinct species is becoming increasingly common. When sequencing a genome (DNA) for a previously sequenced extant species it is common to also sequence RNA to improve the quality of that sequence, so called 'annotation'. It's remarkable that they were able to do this for an extinct species because RNA is notoriously unstable, unlike DNA.
This new work is from September 2023 though, so I'm not sure why it's appeared as a sensationalist news piece now.
They managed to extract and sequence RNA from a preserved specimen and have used this to learn about thylacine biology and improve upon the genome sequence that was published in 2018. Here's the recent paper published last year Historical RNA expression profiles from the extinct Tasmanian tiger - PMC
And there's also a decent commentary piece for a more general audience https://www.science.org/content/article/rna-recovered-tasmanian-tiger-first-extinct-animal (where, incidentally, they note that they are not doing this to try and extinct it)
Sequencing ancient DNA to get genome sequences of extinct species is becoming increasingly common. When sequencing a genome (DNA) for a previously sequenced extant species it is common to also sequence RNA to improve the quality of that sequence, so called 'annotation'. It's remarkable that they were able to do this for an extinct species because RNA is notoriously unstable, unlike DNA.
This new work is from September 2023 though, so I'm not sure why it's appeared as a sensationalist news piece now.
Ah so to answer my own question which I didn't see from skimming the CBS News article, the reason that it's appeared now is because it's reporting on a press release from a biotech company that wants to de-extincting the Thylacine. This is the press release:
Colossal Achieves Multiple Scientific Firsts in Progress Towards Thylacine De-Extinction
Basically they've done a bunch of nonsense doing gene edits to a fat-tailed summary cell line in culture to make it very vaguely more like a Thylacine (in my opinion not in any meaningful way but there you go - someone has clearly put a lot of work into it though).
They also seem to have made some possibly genuine progress on growing dunnart embryos in vitro but I'm not sure how new this really is. Probably new to do it in dunnarts but established in mice in biomedical research.
From what I've seen, it looks like Colossal is using the de-extinction programs as a way to attract attention and funding from people who might not otherwise fund conservation for, for example, dunnarts, but is still using a good deal of these accumulated resources to advance the technology in ways intended to benefit endangered and threatened species in the process, and I believe this was once directly outlined by someone involved with the project. The woolly mammoth and thylacine projects get a lot of clicks that wouldn't be there for real world conservation, and those clicks generate attention and cash.
In fact, Colossal Biosciences has been involved in the EEHV vaccine that is being tested by zoos such as Houston. This has much less to do with woolly mammoths but a lot to do with Asian elephant conservation.
In fact, Colossal Biosciences has been involved in the EEHV vaccine that is being tested by zoos such as Houston. This has much less to do with woolly mammoths but a lot to do with Asian elephant conservation.
One thing that I'm not clear on is why funding for de-extincting a Thylacine should attract private funding to a biotech company. I couldn't see any information about how Colossal Biosciences is funded (unsurprisingly) but presumably as a private biotech company they're funded primarily by venture capital or something like that? I don't see how de extinction could ever generate a financial return.
The work they do seems to be really worthwhile, but I don't understand why it's operating as a biotech startup rather than a philanthropic organisation. Incidentally the article on the EEHV vaccine you linked describes research in partnership with a medical research organisation in receipt of NIH funding and doesn't mention Colossal Biosciences. This sort of public funding for the work strikes me as much more productive than trying to operate it as a biotech company.
It is mentioned here:
The financial return question is a very smart one on your part. I don't know enough there to comment.
Jayden8763
Well-Known Member
they also do partnerships with conservation companies and certain celebrities that will help them when it comes to the cost of things
Jayden8763
Well-Known Member
the reason they are doing partnerships with conservation companies is because say you wanted to bring back 1000 woolly mammoths, that would depend on the number of female Asian elephants that there are. So, they also have to ensure that these species are also safe so that they can prevent extinction of the species and also have enough to use as hosts until artificial wombs can be made.
Jayden8763
Well-Known Member
there are many people who are alive today that remember the thylacine, they are just very old, however with Colossal's recent efforts, we will soon see the thylacine again
I don't think this is true at all. "Conservation companies" definitely don't have the kind of money that biotech startups burn. If there's anything the idea would be the other way around that biotech could support conservation (although I have enormous doubts). Philanthropy could make a difference I expect, but you'd need money on the order of hundreds of millions of $.
If someone did want 1000 mammoths I'm not sure you'd use 1000 surrogate elephants. Once you've got a small number of mammoths you would hope to be able to breed those.
I still stand by my point that this sort of project, de extinction a mammoth or a Thylacine, would be better funded by public money if we were to do it. I imagine for a third of the original funding for the human genome project for example (which would be $2.4bn in today's money) you could comfortably do something of this level of ambition. Would never happen in today's international science funding environment of course.
Jayden8763
Well-Known Member
the mammoth point was an example and they are being funded by many other things and I think sometimes even the Government because they have done many things for existing problems like cane toads and elephant viruses which they need this money for. so if anything is a colossal problem, they will solve it, and that is why they are given lots of money for this because sometimes for important people share problems with colossal which makes them feel as if they need to play a part.
They seem to have $225 million so far, all private funding from venture capital and investors.
I wish them all the best, but I'm unconvinced that a biotech route is the best way to go about things, particularly the biotech for conservation spin.
Last edited:
Colossal will fail and the animal they create (if they even manage that) won't be a Thylacine.