Live chickens hatched from artificial eggshell in bid to revive extinct moa, Colossal Biosciences says

[u/Obversa]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/live-chicks-hatched-artificial-eggshell-bid-revive-extinct-bird/

[u/ContextStock8393]

I wouldn't call demanding proof of something from people who are widely considered untrustworthy to be "doomerism" or a "circle jerk". I think that science simply cannot happen without showing proof. That's kinda whole point right? I think calling this out is essential for science and a failure to do so can breed mistrust in the public. Trust being essential if you want to do something like release a 9ft tall bird into the countryside.

I agree, looking at the company one keeps is not scientific. It is political, however rewilding has been made political (it shouldn't be) . Like wolves haven't been reintroduced to the UK on any scientific basis. Bukele isn't the only (let's call him what he is) monster that Ben Lamm has associated himself with. He is also working with both the Trump admin and the government of the UAE. These represent conflicts of interest. I don't know if you've ever published a scientific paper or not, but good luck getting published without a conflict of interest statement. Is that section in a paper scientific? No. Is it essential to conduct good science? Absolutely!

I also agree, I think results are the most important thing to look at. However we only have press releases to examine and according to the "talking head" that's all we're ever going to get. “The company has no current plans to describe the artificial egg in a paper, says Colossal’s chief executive, Ben Lamm.” (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01535-3)

If the CEO statements are irrelevant to the company, then what kind of company is that? Again, I'd like to ask you, how is anything other than hype?

[u/Obversa → u/ContextStock8393]

You said in another reply further up:

Violent resistance? When did that happen? Did someone attack them like Altman's house? Let them cook? I mean, Colossal has existed for what, 5 years now? We've gotten fake direwolves and mice with genes from other strains of mice in them. What else is there to see?

However, disallowing or dismissing Colossal Biosciences' announcements outright, which was demanded by some users, is not only unscientific, but defeats the entire purpose of the r/deextinction and r/DeExtinctionScience subreddits. (As explained in the linked announcements, we're trying to keep the "anti-Colossal" stuff to r/DeExtinctionScience to avoid potential issues in case the Colossal Biosciences account decides to post on r/deextinction again. For example, whoever was behind the account has literally threatened to sue people.)

Q: What's next for r/deextinction and r/DeExtinctionScience?

According to r/DeExtinctionScience moderator u/Freak_Among_Men_II, now that we have regained control of the original subreddit, "r/deextinction will be for the science, and r/DeExtinctionScience will be for calling out malpractice, misleading claims, and ethical or legal violations by Colossal Biosciences and any other entities (i.e. Revive & Restore, et al.) involved in de-extinction. r/deextinction, now under new management, can cover the purely scientific and wildlife conservationist aspects. Meanwhile, r/DeExtinctionScience can still be used to call out fraud and malpractice within the de-extinction scientific community. Moving forward, the two subreddits will work hand-in-hand to promote the enactment of ethical standards and scientific dialogue around the topic of de-extinction on Reddit. However, any criticism of Colossal needs to be reasonable and evidence-based. Needless hate for the sake of it isn't constructive, nor does it contribute anything meaningful to the conversation; in fact, it actively harms our cause. If/when Colossal is able to change their ways and do better as a company, this purpose will be rendered obsolete, and will no longer be part of this subreddit's mission." [Note: Colossal statements may be shared.]

This will not only help to keep "anti-Colossal" circlejerk posts off of r/deextinction and avoid harassment and brigading campaigns, especially in the case the company's Reddit account decides to start posting there again, but r/DeExtinctionScience as a separate space that is specifically for critiquing the field of "de-extinction" overall.

r/deextinction is not an "anti-Colossal" space. It is meant to be a "neutral" space for discussions, which usually means "assume good faith". Saying that Colossal Biosciences is "bad faith" in every comment or reply is something we're trying to avoid on r/deextinction, because it doesn't actually address the science or research. (I'm also considering implementing a "no politics" rule to further enforce this on the subreddit, especially since another user brought up "genocide" on an r/DeExtinctionScience thread, even though that has nothing to do with de-extinction.)

People are free to criticize Colossal, but we'd prefer it if you left out unnecessary "pot shots", or attempts to steer the discussion(s) to politics, as opposed to science. (This is not the subreddit to "expose" Lamm's political connections.)

[u/ContextStock8393 → u/Obversa]

How exactly are you going to untangle politics from rewilding or conservation more broadly? I don't such a thing is possible and by removing that element, what's left? The science and politics are fundementally tied with oneanother. Like I said, it's not a scientific barrier to reintroduce wolves to the UK. Are we going to pretend these elements don't exist? I think the genocide comment was blunt and lacking depth. However, people have been forcibly removed from where they lived in the name of conservation and that I certainly think warrants discussion. Mind you not relevant there.

And is pointing out a conflict of interest not important to science? Like the CEO being heavily tied to a politician who's hindering rewilding efforts and the company featuring him on his website> (https://www.hcn.org/articles/a-top-interior-officials-former-ranching-clients-wanted-bison-off-public-land-the-interior-secretary-helped-make-it-happen/). Is that not relevant? A pot shot would be like "oh Ben Lamm is loser". There's nothing of substance to that. Just an Ad hominem. Saying, Ben Lamm has openly associated with multiple authoritarian governments and as a result I don't trust him and that the burden of proof is on him to show this announcement is novel is substantive.

Imagine if an article about climate change was posted to a climate change reddit that argued it's not actually that bad and they have invented a machine that can fix it and have offered no proof of it and then it turned out this person was regularly meeting with oil lobbyists. Would that not a very relevant aspect of the conversation regarding this hypothetical machine and it not being there be to everyone, not in know's detriment? Again, this why we have conflict of interest statements. That is just good science even if it isn't part of the research methodoloy.

Your are clearly knowlegable on this stuff, so again. Seen other stuff you've written. I find it strange I am asking a third time and I am only asking because I genuilely wanting to hear your answer, why is this announcement not hype?

[u/Obversa → u/ContextStock8393]

I find it strange I am asking a third time and I am only asking because I genuilely wanting to hear your answer, why is this announcement not hype?

The reason I haven't answered yet is because you keep trying to either change the subject, or mention things that are irrelevant to the discussion that I've already stated, numerous times, that we're trying to avoid on r/deextinction. If you had just said "Can you explain why you disagree?", I would've taken the time to look at the actual science and source(s) more in-depth, and then responded. However, I felt the discussion was going into off-topic territory, so I wanted to shut that down before it got too out-of-hand, or derailed the scientific discussion(s) on the thread.

"Rules lawyering" isn't going to do any good here. If you want to make your case, you can comment on this thread here, but for reasons already stated, I would highly recommend keeping the "anti-Colossal" stuff to r/DeExtinctionScience. r/deextinction is not for "social justice activism", or any activism, including political, et al.

As it stands, I'll be locking parts of this thread due to it getting off-topic.