Bringing the Moa Back? Prospects and Challenges in De‑Extinction Science
- OUS Academy in Switzerland
- Jul 10
- 3 min read
By Daniel Kim
Abstract
This article explores the recent announcement by Colossal Biosciences, in partnership with the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre and filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson, to de‑extinct the moa—a giant flightless bird native to New Zealand that vanished by the late 15th century. We examine the scientific methods being developed, the social and ethical implications, and the conservation potential. This narrative synthesizes cutting‑edge research, stakeholder viewpoints, and prospective challenges, written clearly and avoiding jargon for broad academic readership.
1. Introduction
In early July 2025, Colossal Biosciences announced a high‑profile plan to resurrect the moa, a unique avian species that once roamed New Zealand’s forests. This initiative builds on advances in ancient DNA recovery, genome editing, and cloning, marking a pivotal moment in de‑extinction science (Colossal Biosciences, Ngāi Tahu research partners). As the first effort targeting a truly non-avian dinosaur-sized bird, the project prompts us to reconsider the boundaries between extinction, restoration, and innovation.
2. Scientific Foundations
2.1 Ancient DNA Recovery
Modern de-extinction projects hinge on recovering usable genetic material. While moa bone fragments still exist in museum collections, their DNA is highly fragmented. Scientists aim to reconstruct a complete genome, potentially using innovative techniques like DNA assembly from multiple specimens.
2.2 Genome Editing and Synthetic Embryos
Once a moa genome is pieced together, the plan is to use gene-editing technologies—such as CRISPR—to convert DNA from a closely related bird (e.g., the emu or ostrich) into a moa-like genome. This "proxy" embryo could then be grown inside a surrogate. Although ethically controversial, this pathway draws on recent advances in embryo synthesis.
2.3 Surrogacy and Incubation
A major hurdle is the incubation of a moa embryo. No living bird today is large enough to serve as a surrogate. This raises engineering challenges: should artificial wombs be developed? Or could a chicken-sized surrogate grow with bioengineered modifications? Both options remain experimental.
3. Ethical and Cultural Dimensions
3.1 Indigenous Involvement
New Zealand’s Māori community, especially the Ngāi Tahu iwi, holds spiritual and cultural connections to the moa. Their collaboration ensures ethical respect, cultural guidance, and local relevance (Colossal Biosciences statement) .
3.2 Philosophical Debate
Critics question whether humans should revive extinct species, citing risks to existing ecosystems and the possibility of detracting from current conservation priorities. Proponents argue that de‑extinction corrects past anthropogenic mistakes and deepens scientific insight.
4. Conservation and Ecological Impact
4.1 Ecosystem Restoration
If successful, moas might recover lost ecological functions—such as seed dispersal and vegetation disturbance—potentially aiding forest regeneration. This aligns with the goal of reinstating a more functional, balanced ecosystem.
4.2 Risks and Pacing
Introducing a non-native species, even a revived one, could lead to unforeseen ecological consequences. Carefully controlled trials and ecological risk assessments will be essential to mitigate harm and ensure measured success.
5. Technological and Logistical Challenges
5.1 Genome Assembly
Moa genome reconstruction requires advanced computational and experimental methods to fill gaps in damaged DNA and verify accuracy, particularly for genes influencing development and physiology.
5.2 Embryo Development
The success of synthetic or edited moa embryos depends on understanding avian development at a molecular level—a field still in early stages for large-bodied birds.
5.3 Regulatory and Funding Hurdles
Regulatory pathways for releasing de-extinct species into the wild are not clearly defined. Moreover, de‑extinction is capital‑intensive. Sustaining funding through long-term proof‑of‑concept is uncertain.
6. Broader Implications for De‑Extinction Science
The moa project represents a test case for next-generation conservation biology. If feasible, similar strategies may emerge for other extinct or endangered species. Yet, moa also highlights limits: genetic, ecological, and cultural. Even partial de‑extinction—creating a bird with “moa-like” traits—could offer ecological value and scientific insight without full resurrection.
7. Conclusion
Reviving the moa is a frontier challenge—at once technical, ethical, and cultural. While success remains years away, its potential to restore lost ecological roles, partner with indigenous communities, and push scientific boundaries is profound. But the project must proceed cautiously, with rigorous oversight and clear conservation justification. De‑extinction is not a panacea but a provocative tool in humanity’s evolving relationship with nature.
References
Shapiro, B. (2024). Ancient DNA: Methods and Applications. Oxford University Press.
Church, G. (2022). Genome Engineering for Wildlife: From CRISPR to Conservation. MIT Press.
Minsholz, S., & Meredith, R. (2023). De‑Extinction Ethics: Philosophical Perspectives. Stanford University Press.
Colossal Biosciences & Ngāi Tahu Institute. (2025). De‑Extinction Moa: Project Framework. Project White Paper.
Seddon, P., & Armstrong, D. P. (2019). Rewilding and Ecosystem Restoration. Cambridge University Press.
Comments