Photo credit: www.technologyreview.com
The Debate Over Patenting De-Extinction Projects
Revive & Restore, an organization dedicated to de-extinction based in Sausalito, California, is making strides toward the revival of the passenger pigeon. The organization has made clear its stance against the idea of intellectual-property claims over these birds. Elizabeth Bennett, a spokesperson for Revive & Restore, stated, “Revive & Restore will not be patenting de-extinct passenger pigeons.” The organization intends for any successfully reintroduced birds to be safeguarded by existing wildlife legislation, emphasizing their commitment to ethical conservation practices.
This debate surrounding the patentability of de-extinct animals is not limited to passenger pigeons. In a project to resurrect the woolly mammoth, initiated over a decade ago at Harvard University, opinions among genetic engineers are divided. Cory Smith, who was involved in the early stages of the mammoth project and is now a biotech executive, recalls contributing to a patent application concerning engineered elephants, which was filed by Harvard in 2021. Smith expressed uncertainty about whether ownership of such animals is appropriate, saying, “I have always been on the side that maybe the animals shouldn’t be patented.”
Last week, Colossal—a company prominent in de-extinction efforts—conducted a press campaign but withheld specific details about the genetic modifications made to its wolves. The company cited “intellectual-property reasons” for keeping this information confidential, raising concerns among scientists who found their ability to evaluate the experiment hampered. This strategic secrecy would also allow Colossal to present its information to the patent office, as existing public knowledge cannot be patented.
When asked about the potential for a patent application concerning the transgenic wolves, Colossal CEO Ben Lamm’s responses were initially evasive. The implications of such a patent are significant; it would position the wolves as commercial products rather than wild animals re-integrated into their ecosystems. Lamm commented, “We take a thoughtful approach to intellectual property that balances scientific advancement with sustainable business practices.” He emphasized that any patent protections would pertain only to the specific technical methods and innovations developed by the company, rather than the genetic makeup of extinct species themselves, asserting that they view themselves more as stewards rather than owners of these remarkable creatures.
However, the situation becomes more complex with the pending mammoth patent. Filed in 2023, the application is titled “Woolly mammoth specific gene variants and compositions comprising same” and includes 29 claims aimed at controlling a variety of mammoth gene variants as well as any organisms that carry that genetic information. This raises ethical questions about ownership, conservation, and the impact of commodifying de-extinct species.
Ethics of Ownership and Conservation
The ongoing conversations about inventing life—whether it be through reintroducing long-extinct species or engineering modifications in existing ones—bring forward crucial ethical considerations surrounding biodiversity and conservation. Organizations like Revive & Restore advocate for approaches that prioritize ecological integrity and the natural roles these species would play if restored. This contrasts sharply with the motives of commercial interests that seek to assert ownership over genetic innovations.
As the dialogue continues, the tension between scientific progress and ethical responsibility will remain at the forefront of de-extinction initiatives. Scientists, ethicists, and conservationists will need to align their objectives to ensure that efforts to revive species like the passenger pigeon and woolly mammoth respect the values of nature and sustainability.
Source
www.technologyreview.com