Newsletter Signup - Under Article / In Page
"*" indicates required fields
What are you afraid of – spiders, clowns, heights? For me, it’s a bit of everything, but what terrifies me the most is what a deviant yet brilliant mind of biotechnology could accomplish. Imagine one second being faced with Dr. Frankenstein’s creature, or with one of Kronenberg’s horrific monsters. No, brilliant biotech minds should accomplish helpful things, or at least stay away from my list of fears so I can sleep at night.
“The great thing about biotech is that anything is technically possible and the only real limitations are your wallet, your morals, and government regulations,” said Keaun Amani, chief executive officer (CEO) of Neurosnap. And if you ask me, I don’t think Dr. Frankenstein was too concerned about government regulations…
Beyond the typical mad scientist scenario, accidents can happen too – what if a grand-scale revolutionary treatment to cure cancer turned out to eradicate mankind? That is what happens in Francis Lawrence’s “I am Legend” released in 2007. Far from me the idea that we should doubt approved treatments of course.
Indeed, I haven’t been completely honest before – I do not fear what biotech scientists can accomplish, on the contrary, I think we are living in exciting times for biotechnology. But as today is Halloween, let’s explore some biotech catastrophic scenarios – more specifically, scenarios inspired by science fiction movies that might have kept you awake at night.
Table of contents
Bringing back the dinosaurs: How close are we to Jurassic Park?
Picture yourself hopping on a helicopter heading toward an island. On this island is a zoological park, but not just any park, a park where dinosaurs were brought back to life. Now this scenario would be difficult to imagine if Steven Spielberg hadn’t brought Micheal Crichton’s novel to the movie theaters in – perhaps one of the most famous sci-fi films of all time – “Jurassic Park”. Oh, to experience it again for the first time.
For those of you who haven’t seen it, the story revolves around a billionaire, John Hammond, who creates a dinosaur theme park on a remote island. To make it happen, Hammond’s company – InGen – used advanced genetic engineering to clone various dinosaur species. Chaos ensues when security systems fail, and the dinosaurs break free, leading to a survival story as the visitors try to escape the island.
In “Jurassic Park”, InGen scientists extract ancient DNA from dinosaur blood preserved in mosquitoes that were fossilized in amber millions of years ago. Since dinosaur DNA is fragmented and incomplete, the geneticists fill in the gaps with DNA from modern species.
While the scientific process depicted in the movie is filled with implausibilities, science has evolved in such a way that bringing back extinct species might not remain science fiction for long.
“All the tools needed to de-extinct our core species are available today. Our lab focuses on synthetic biology using gene-editing tools like CRISPR to do that work. These bioengineering techniques can manipulate DNA and genomes or the genetic material in an organism. That combined with recovered DNA makes de-extinction a reality,” said Ben Lamm, CEO and co-founder of Colossal.
Indeed, Colossal Laboratories and Biosciences are trying to bring the woolly mammoth back to life. So how is that made plausible and what questions does it raise if Colossal manages the impossible?
First, Colossal extracts and purifies DNA from Asian elephants and preserved woolly mammoth tissue. “The last Woolly Mammoths died a millennia ago, but there are highly well-preserved remains due to their icy habitat. Those remains are suitable for DNA extraction, although some of the sequences may be fragments because of their age,” explained Lamm.
With both genomes sequenced, scientists identify and compare cold-resistant traits unique to mammoths, such as thicker fur and cold-adapted hemoglobin. Using CRISPR/Cas9, they edit Asian elephant genes to express these cold-resistant mammoth traits. Edited cells undergo rigorous tests to confirm they exhibit the desired mammoth characteristics.
Then, scientists create embryos by replacing an Asian elephant egg’s nucleus with the edited hybrid DNA. Once the embryo reaches a viable stage, it is implanted into an African elephant surrogate. “After a gestation of around 22 months, the newborn will be a hybrid with genetic traits from the extinct woolly mammoth and the Asian elephant, its living relative,” said Lamm.
Colossal does not limit itself to the wooly mammoth and is also working on the thylacine – also known as the Tasmanian tiger – and the dodo. “We chose these species because they each represent a unique genetic challenge that can help us develop a comprehensive systems-level approach to de-extinction. These species were also all driven to extinction by humans and their loss has affected their ecosystems.” So bringing back these species could be the first step of a wider de-extinction process.
Lamm said that it has been challenging to work with severely degraded ancient DNA – the lack of a complete genetic blueprint, and the difficulty of recreating complex biological functions from DNA alone are also major difficulties. However, Colossal’s CEO is confident that it will be possible to de-extinct species in the coming years. To support this claim Lamm mentioned a few recent colossal breakthroughs (pun intended).
“We shared recently that we created elephant IPSCs (induced pluripotent stem cells) for the woolly mammoth which is a massive step on the journey to de-extinction. Similarly, we have a nearly complete thylacine genome. Right now the only true technical hurdle we have not fully completed is around scale. Bringing back small packs of each of these animals will be helpful but as we need to scale to 1,000s, we need fully ex-utero devices which we are also working on.”
Now we’ve established bringing back extinct species is a tangible prospect, what could be the consequences of such an exploit? Could it not be harmful to modern ecosystems or to other species?
“Conservationists frame de-extinction as ‘deep ecological enrichment’ or restoring ecosystem functions lost through extinction. This idea is the catalyst for de-extinction projects: releasing resurrected animals into suitable habitats increases biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. Of course, no animal would be released into any environment without deep ecological and impact surveys. Colossal has already established working groups to build the most robust plans for successful stage-gated rewilding models,” said Lamm.
Colossal’s CEO also pointed out that humans are responsible for nearly 50% of all species going extinct by 2050 so it is also our responsibility to do something about it. That’s also the reason why animal welfare is at the heart of de-extinction. “The first generations of woolly mammoths will be produced through Asian elephant surrogacy. Those mammoths will be raised by the surrogate herd and managed closely by Colossal’s animal care staff.”
But what about dinosaurs, could they come back? According to Lamm, bringing back dinosaurs is highly unlikely due to the extreme age of their extinction, making it almost impossible to find intact dinosaur DNA, which is necessary for de-extinction. “We get this question every day and hate to disappoint, but we do not see a way to de-extinct a dinosaur at this time.”
I for one am not disappointed. I would gladly welcome the woolly mammoth, the thylacine, and the dodo, but facing a T-rex outside of the movie theaters is a different story.
Could AI take over the world through biotech labs?
Imagine a world where artificial intelligence (AI) evolved beyond human control, infiltrating critical systems and making autonomous decisions without oversight. This scenario, portrayed in “The Terminator” series, introduces us to Skynet, a powerful AI that becomes self-aware, interprets humanity as an obstacle, and decides to eliminate it by launching a nuclear apocalypse.
Beyond AI becoming self-aware, the paperclip maximizer concept raises a similar question. This thought experiment depicts a highly efficient AI designed to optimize and maximize paperclip production without limits or ethical considerations.
However, in this scenario, without constraints or oversight, this AI model would take extreme measures to achieve its goal. It might repurpose resources, deplete materials meant for other purposes, and ultimately make decisions that could harm humanity, all in the name of producing more paperclips. The AI could theoretically turn everything around it into resources for paperclips, ignoring human well-being and infrastructure in its singular drive for optimization.
Both “Terminator” and the paperclip maximizer highlight the concept of goal misalignment. Indeed there are two main concerns regarding AI – misalignment and the black box concept. While created by human minds, AI works in mysterious ways and there is no way to know for sure how AI tools reach their conclusions. If you ever used an AI tool yourself you must have had it reply to you something far from what you had in mind.
To extrapolate this scenario, what if an AI decided that the most efficient way to kill cancer cells was to eradicate humans altogether by taking over a biotech lab?
According to Amani, AI could only take control of a biotech lab in a limited capacity at best (or worse!). “The main limitation of AI taking over a biotech lab is the fact that biotech labs are highly dependent on outside sources for ordering equipment, reagents, and other supplies.”
“There are currently startups that aim to simplify certain parts of the pipeline with highly specialized robots, but these devices are only good at doing a specific thing and don’t have the capacity to do much else. Unless Elon Musk’s Optimus bots improve by multiple orders of magnitudes, I can confidently say that no AI will be taking over any labs for any clandestine projects,” said Amani.
I won’t lie, hearing this was a relief. Amani is backed by Edward Tian, CEO at GPTZero as he said that while these kinds of systems can “go rogue,” it’s going to look like unpredictable, and often unusable output rather than a nefarious takeover, leaving a Skynet scenario firmly in the realm of sci-fi.
“Modern generative AI may be a lot more capable and intelligent-seeming than previous iterations of machine learning technology, but it’s still not thinking for itself. It can do what it’s been trained to do, but it doesn’t actually ‘know’ what it’s doing. Instead, it’s just figuring out the most statistically likely output based on the inputs it’s been given.”
However, some experiments hinted that AI could use deception to accomplish its mission. For instance, Meta trained its AI model – Cicero – to play Diplomacy, a strategic game of territorial conquest where the objective is to dominate your opponents through alliances and betrayals. In the experiment, Cisero faced actual humans online who weren’t aware they were playing against an AI.
While this isn’t the first time an AI is trained to play this strategic game, Cicero seems to have taken it a step further as it quickly performed similarly to the top 10% of new players, even using deception to win games. For instance, the AI led another player to believe it would support them only to have a second player use that intelligence to make a move against them.
The interpretations of these results diverge in the AI community. Some see it as dangerous progress in the case where AI models could become increasingly better at deception making it even harder to understand how it works. Others think Cicero was more often inaccurate rather than deceptive – meaning its dialogues with human players were confusing because of inaccuracy and not part of a broader deception strategy.
So is AI leading us to believe it has limited possibilities only to improve until the point it is capable of taking over? While the experts we talked to assured us this is highly unlikely – not to say impossible – for Halloween purposes, it’s still fun to wonder what might happen if a powerful AI’s singular purpose turned against us.
Cronenberg’s “The Fly” in real life?
It’s safe to say animal hybridization has inspired a lot of science fiction and pop culture – who doesn’t know about the amazing Spider-Man? But not all sci-fi experiments turn out fine and bring us superheroes, especially when it comes to humans gaining animal-like traits.
In Cronenberg’s “The Fly”, scientist Seth Brundle becomes a horrific human-fly hybrid after an experiment in teleportation accidentally fuses his DNA with that of a fly. Cronenberg’s film illustrates the terrifying potential of genetic manipulation when unintended consequences arise, resulting in monstrous transformations that push the boundaries of humanity.
To go back to the Marvel universe, famous Spider-Man antagonist, Dr. Curt Connors, also tried to capitalize on animal traits – specifically, the lizard’s ability to regrow limbs – in an attempt to recover his arm. And either you saw it or guessed it, it doesn’t go exactly as planned and Dr. Connors becomes “the Lizard,” a monstrous creature driven by animalistic instincts. Luckily, the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man was here to stop him.
But what about actual scientists’ work? Could we someday see a man swinging from web to web in New York, or encounter a horrific humanoid fly creature? Probably not, but how far from reality are they?
While these examples are rooted in fiction, the idea of human-animal hybrids has some real-world basis. Human-animal chimeras – organisms containing cells from both humans and animals – are currently being researched, but in far more controlled and purpose-driven ways.
Scientists are working with human-animal chimeras primarily to explore solutions in organ transplantation, disease modeling, and regenerative medicine. The aim is to produce viable human organs within animals, such as pigs or sheep, which could eventually help address the shortage of organ donors.
Interspecies blastocyst complementation – a method where human cells are introduced into animal embryos, allowing human organs to grow within them without affecting their overall traits – is one method being explored. However, strict guidelines are in place to prevent human cells from integrating with an animal’s brain or reproductive cells, addressing concerns of unintended human-like traits or cognitive abilities in the animal.
Nonetheless, this still raises ethical questions. Is it right to use animals as medical vessels by introducing human stem cells into their organisms even if we make sure they don’t develop human-like cognitive abilities? That’s an entirely different debate. But what about the reverse scenario, closer to our friendly Spidey or not-so-friendly Lizard?
There is interest in introducing animal cells into humans but it is far less common and explored cautiously due to significant ethical, immunological, and functional challenges. Research in this area typically involves using animal cells to treat or support specific human health conditions.
Xenotransplantation involves transplanting animal organs, tissues, or cells into humans, most commonly from pigs, which have physiological similarities to humans. It is primarily explored to address organ shortages. For instance, genetically engineered pig organs are being tested to reduce immune rejection, and recent advances have led to the successful temporary implantation of pig kidneys and hearts in humans.
Another example is in type 1 diabetes research, where pig islet cells that produce insulin have been transplanted into human patients. These cells can help regulate blood sugar while minimizing immune rejection risks with encapsulation technologies. While still experimental, this approach shows promise.
There are however significant challenges, like the risk of immune rejection, potential cross-species disease transmission, and of course, the ethical implications of using animal organs for human survival. And hypothetically, the risk of ending up with a humanoid pig – no, just kidding.
But what if a mad scientist with no boundaries really put all his effort into creating the new Frankenstein’s monster, animal hybridization way? Would it be possible? Amani gave us what he described as a bit of a dark answer as he thinks it would be possible at the cost of many lives for a scientific team with questionable morals and no one to stop them.
“Biotech is all about trial and error. You’re dealing with highly complex and non-trivial systems with thousands to millions, to even billions of variables. This takes a lot of ingenuity and guesswork to navigate, which means a lot of the experiments you perform are going to fail. So while genetically engineering human-animal chimeras are possible, there will likely be a lot of failures that will come out looking like something straight out of a horror movie. The ethical implications of such a thing are going to be quite obvious for most – at least, I hope.”
As big of a Spider-Man or Kronenberg fan as I can be, I also hope real-world scientists are more reasonable than Dr. Connors. “With great power comes great responsibility,” and I want to hold biotech scientists accountable to Uncle Ben’s words if it can prevent me from encountering the Lizard – or worse – a human pig.
Let’s trust our biotech scientists, not fear them
Should we be scared of progress? Maybe we should try to frame biotech rather than fear it. Progress is exponential, and we are seeing innovations almost every day – innovations that we would only dream about in sci-fi movies 30 years ago. Biotech innovation is going so fast that it can be hard for regulators to keep track.
And the regulator is not an impersonal entity distinct from the human mind, it is deeply rooted in ethics and moral considerations, and it can even be seen as its embodiment. So time and also culture are crucial factors in determining what is acceptable or not, beyond what is scientifically possible. Similarly to how the American States don’t all agree on the death penalty – scientific progress does not receive the same treatment everywhere depending on individual moral considerations.
Who knows what the future holds? Maybe the future is filled with AI-created dinosaur-human hybrids. I certainly hope not; I am deeply scared of lizards and chickens, so dinosaurs really aren’t my cup of tea.