This month has been dominated by headlines on “bringing back” the direwolf. The direwolf is an extinct canine which existed more than 10,000 years ago. A biotechnology company has now brought these animals “back” by creating a genetically modified animal with grey wolf and direwolf traits.
Ecologists are divided on this move, but many others are thrilled. Some consider this is a foolproof method to stave off extinction: If something is imperilled, there is no reason to worry. It can always be brought back. The other reason for celebration is that direwolves are well-known in popular culture. Author George RR Martin’s The Song of Ice and Fire books, later turned into the Game of Thrones TV series, has immortalised direwolves. In the series, the direwolves are huge, loyal companions to the Stark family. They protect their charges with their lives, are able to understand English, and seem to possess a form of intuition that appears at least partly magical. In reality, direwolves were the same size as modern Grey wolves, and would have made terrible pets.
But Martin isn’t to be faulted here. An author’s job is to create unforgettable characters, whether human or non-human. The issue is whether the adoration we feel for fictional characters can be superimposed on their wild counterparts. And if we can look at biotechnology as a solution to the perils faced by wildlife.
Many wild animals are struggling today because they are not considered desirable enough to exist near us. Wolves are shot and eradicated like vermin in many parts of the Western world because they are seen as a threat to livestock. (This is even though Grey wolf pups are just as cute as direwolf pups.) In India, wolves are under threat as the scrub and grassland they live in are getting taken over for other uses; and they are also hybridising increasingly with free-ranging dogs, creating hybrids with a new set of behaviours. The pups of existing wild wolves are just as cute as those of dire wolves. But overall, it seems we are more likely to tolerate an animal if it’s on screen, rather than in our backyard. The way many constituencies would like to live with a predator like a wolf is to fetishise the animal—as an actor, as a zoo exhibit, or as a piece of art.
And this brings us to the moot issue: what we really need are wild animals living in their natural habitats. That is key to the persistence of the species, and to ecosystem functioning. As an example, the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone national park in the 90s created what is known as ‘trophic cascades’—the wolves regulated the population of elk deer, this allowed trees to regenerate, and also brought up the population of other wild animals, such as beavers.
At the end of the day, it is important to see cloning for what it is—a science experiment that is at best a proxy for what is natural. This should not create complacency for letting go of what already exists. It shouldn’t create situations in which killing of animals or habitat destructions carries on unchecked, because one day it could all be brought back. It’s like going to Space or building colonies on Mars—good as science experiments, meaningless for actually solving problems on Earth.
Views expressed are personal Posts on X: @nehaa_sinha