Have you heard of wolves recently? Maybe you see a huge white wolf or a picture of "Game of Thrones" writer George RR Martin on the cover of Time magazine, holding a puppy named after his character in his book.

The terrifying wolf, a large wolf-type species that became extinct about 12,000 years ago, has become news after Biotech Company Collossal claims to have resurrected it using cloning and gene editing techniques. Huge calls itself a "de-extinction" company. The concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or mixing with nature, and a more concentrated objection that contemporary de-extinction tools create bad imitations rather than truly resurrected species.

Although biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal implications of the protection of endangered species are crucial. As a PhD legal scholar in wildlife genetics, my focus is on us legally defining the term “endangered species”. Biotechnology is used to protect, whether it is de-extinction or genetic enhancement of existing species, has promised solutions to address other difficult problems. But it needs to live in harmony with letters and purposes of laws governing biodiversity conservation.

Terrible wolf and extinction

What did the Giant actually do? Scientists extract and sequence DNA from ice age bones to understand the genetic makeup of the terrifying wolf. They were able to piece together about 90% of the terrifying wolf genome. Although gray wolves and terrifying wolves are separated by millions of years of evolution, they make up more than 99.5% of their genome.

Scientists scanned the recovered sequence of terrible wolves to understand the specific genes it believes are causing physical and ecological differences between terrible wolves and other canine families, including those related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes to the DNA of an organism. The huge team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in modern gray wolf cells, and then implanted the embryos into the replacement mother.

While the technology on display is wonderful, should we call the final animal? Some commentators believe that the animals are just modified gray wolf. They noted that it would take more than 20 editors to bridge the gap in millions of years of development. For example, 0.5% of the mismatched genomes in these two species represent more than 12 million base pair differences.

Philosophically speaking, perhaps other skeptics argue that a species is more than just a collection of genes without an environment, ecological or evolutionary environment.

On the other hand, the giant game insists that it is in a "feature reduction" game. The company admits it is not to make a perfect copy of the terrifying wolf. Instead, it wanted to recreate what looked and acted like an ancient wolf. It prefers the formation school of "if it looks like a duck and a quack doctor like a duck, it is a duck."

Differences about taxonomy—the science of naming and sorting organisms—are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of “species” and have dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature.

When the bet is just a dialogue misunderstanding, biologists can afford flexibility and inaccuracy. Lawyers and policy makers, on the other hand, do not have this luxury.

Determine what is an endangered "species"

In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the primary tool for protecting biodiversity.

To be protected by the bill, the organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most controversial ESA questions are definitive, for example, whether the listed species is a valid “species” and whether a single organism, especially a hybrid, is a member of the listed species.

The huge concept of functional species is a deterioration of the Endangered Species Act. It narrows down the value of a species to the way it looks or functions. However, when the bill was passed, Congress made it clear that the species’ “aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, historical, entertainment and scientific values ​​are for the country and its people.” I think myopia attention to function seems to miss the point.

Although it insists otherwise, the huge defining hand opens the argument that one should reduce current protection funds or protection measures for hazardous species. Why spend money to protect small animals and their habitats, you can “choose your favorite species and call for huge species”, according to Home Secretary Doug Burgum?

Use biotechnology for protection

Biotechnology can provide real protective benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest that the real value of gene editing is not to reproduce faxes from long-term extinct species like the scary wolf, but to use it to restore a fax that is stuck in trouble.

Huge and other groups of projects are all around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or develop to tolerate a warm world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations of genetic diversity.

For example, Giant also announced that a red wolf had been cloned. Unlike the terrible wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, although it is very close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about twelve red wolves in the wild of the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, imprisoning hundreds of red wolves.

The entire population of wild and captive red wolf comes from only 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited legacy means that the species has lost a lot of genetic diversity, which will help it continue to develop and adapt.

To reintroduce some missing genetic diversity, you need to find genetic material from red wolf outside of the management population. Currently, this requires stored tissue samples of animals that live before establishing a captive breeding program or rediscover the wild “lost” population.

Recently, researchers have found that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast have considerable red wolf-derived DNA in their genome. The hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found in these coyotes do suggest sources of genetic material that biotechnology can exploit and can help breed people in captivity if legal barriers can be managed.

This coyote population is a huge source of its cloned "ghost" red wolf. Even the announcement is damaged by the confusion in definition. Due to its hybrid nature, the huge clone of the animal may not be considered a red wolf at all.

Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrids are usually not protected. Therefore, by cloning one of these animals, the huge possibility avoids the need for ESA licenses. Almost certainly, if it tries to breed these "ghost wolf" into the current Red Wolf captive breeding program, the program has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. Even without legal uncertainty, how much emphasis is placed on genetic "purity" and genetic "purity" of genetic diversity in custodial species remains a very difficult question.

Biotechnology can never solve all conservation issues, especially habitat destruction. The ability to make copies of species “functional” certainly does not reduce the urgency of biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce the moral culprits of humanity. But to fully respond to the evolving biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all the tools available.