Resurrecting the Moa? Scientists Launch Hybrid De-Extinction Project, But at What Cost?

New Zealand's Moa went extinct around 600 years ago. Image courtesy of Science.

In a headline-grabbing move, scientists have announced plans to bring back New Zealand’s extinct giant bird, the moa, or at least a version of it. The ambitious project, led by de-extinction biotech company Colossal Biosciences, will attempt to recreate the moa by inserting ancient moa DNA into the genome of its closest living relative, an undisclosed bird species from South America. But while it’s being marketed as the return of a lost species, experts and conservationists are urging caution.

The reality with any of these de-extinction projects is that this won’t be a real moa. With the moa extinct for hundreds of years and no fully intact genome to work from, scientists are proposing a hybrid, a genetically engineered bird that may resemble the moa but will never be the original species. Think more “moa-inspired” than moa resurrected.

That’s raising concerns about the true purpose and utility of such projects. While de-extinction captures the public imagination, critics argue it risks becoming a distraction from more pressing ecological priorities.

“Even if reviving extinct species is practical, it’s an awful idea. It would take resources away from saving endangered species and their habitats and would divert us from the critical work needed to protect the planet, “ says Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University.

At a time when thousands of real, living species are on the brink of extinction, funnelling millions into an experiment that creates a biologically ambiguous hybrid raises ethical and practical questions.

There are also broader ecological considerations. Moas were once major shapers of New Zealand’s landscape, acting as seed dispersers and helping maintain the balance of native forests. But ecosystems have changed dramatically in the centuries since their disappearance. Introducing a new, moa-like species into that environment could have unpredictable consequences, especially if it doesn’t behave like its ancestor.

At the heart of the debate is a question of values: should our limited conservation dollars be spent on trying to reverse extinctions, or preventing them in the first place? Critics point out that many native New Zealand species are currently under threat from habitat loss, invasive predators, and climate change. Directing funds toward their protection would likely have far more tangible benefits for biodiversity.

In 2024, Colossal Laboratories was already successful in “returning the dire wolf to its rightful place in the ecosystem” after a 10,000-year absence by genetically altering gray wolf cells.  

While the moa project will undoubtedly generate media buzz and public fascination, it raises important questions about science, ethics, and priorities. In an era where conservation efforts are stretched thin, is it wise, or responsible, to invest in a reimagined version of the past, when the present is slipping through our fingers?

Until we answer that, one thing remains clear: no matter how tall it stands, this new creature will never truly be the moa.