Giants Among Us Again: The Controversial Quest to Resurrect the Moa

Imagine walking through a New Zealand forest and encountering a bird standing over 12 feet tall, its powerful neck craning down from the canopy to observe you with ancient eyes. This isn't a scene from a fantasy novel—it's the audacious vision of Colossal Biosciences, a Texas biotechnology company that announced in July 2025 its most ambitious de-extinction project yet: bringing back the South Island giant moa.

The moa, a massive flightless bird that disappeared around 600 years ago, is about to become the latest chapter in humanity's attempt to undo the extinctions we caused. But as this science-fiction dream inches closer to reality, it forces us to confront profound questions about our relationship with nature, our responsibility to the past, and the uncertain future we're creating.

The Lost Giants of Aotearoa

For millions of years, nine species of moa dominated New Zealand's ecological landscape. The largest among them, the South Island giant moa (Dinornis robustus), was a creature of staggering proportions. Females stood roughly 6.5 feet tall at the back and could extend their necks to heights exceeding 12 feet, while males were about half that size. Weighing up to 500 pounds, these herbivorous giants shaped their ecosystems profoundly, influencing vegetation structure and nutrient cycling across forests and grasslands.

The moa had evolved in splendid isolation, thriving in an environment with virtually no mammalian predators. They filled ecological niches similar to large grazing mammals on other continents, using their long necks like giraffes to browse at various heights, consuming seeds, fruits, leaves, and grasses. Their extinction came swiftly after Polynesian settlers arrived in New Zealand. Within a single century of human contact, overhunting and habitat destruction wiped out all nine moa species—a devastating example of how quickly humans can eliminate even the most dominant creatures.

The Technology of Resurrection

Colossal Biosciences has partnered with New Zealand's Ngāi Tahu Research Centre and filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson (who contributed $15 million to the project) in what represents the first Indigenous-coordinated de-extinction effort. The company, valued at over $10 billion as of 2025, has already made headlines with its controversial creation of modified grey wolves with genetic features from extinct dire wolves.

The moa project follows a sophisticated scientific pathway. First, researchers are working to sequence the genomes of all nine historically described moa species using DNA extracted from museum specimens, private collections like Jackson's, and field excavations in sites across New Zealand. Because birds are dinosaurs in evolutionary terms, bringing back a 12-foot, 500-pound bird is, as scientists note, genuinely possible—unlike resurrecting non-avian dinosaurs whose DNA has degraded beyond recovery.

The actual resurrection process leverages cutting-edge reproductive technology. Scientists will extract primordial germ cells from embryos of the moa's closest living relatives—likely emus or tinamous—and use CRISPR gene-editing technology to rewrite their genomes to match key moa characteristics. These edited cells will then be introduced into host embryos. If successful, these host birds will grow up to produce eggs and sperm carrying moa genetics rather than their own, eventually giving birth to moa chicks.

The timeline? Colossal estimates achieving this feat within five to ten years, making this project potentially more near-term than their woolly mammoth or thylacine efforts.

The Ethical Battlefield

The moa project has ignited fierce debate in the scientific and conservation communities, crystallizing broader tensions about humanity's role in shaping the natural world.

The Case for Resurrection

Proponents argue that de-extinction represents a moral imperative—a form of restorative justice for species humanity drove to extinction. The moa's disappearance was directly caused by human activity, and advocates suggest we have an ethical responsibility to rectify our ancestors' mistakes. Beyond justice, supporters highlight potential ecological benefits. As the largest herbivores in New Zealand's evolutionary history, reintroduced moa could help restore ecosystem functions that have been missing for six centuries, potentially aiding in vegetation management and nutrient cycling.

The technological advances required for de-extinction also promise significant conservation applications. Research into reproductive technologies, genome sequencing, and genetic diversity could directly benefit endangered species currently on the brink. Colossal maintains that techniques developed for the moa project could be applied to critically endangered birds facing genetic bottlenecks, such as the Mauritian pink pigeon.

There's also the powerful "wonder factor." As filmmaker Peter Jackson observed, witnessing a living moa would evoke amazement beyond anything achievable through cinema or special effects. This emotional connection might inspire greater public engagement with conservation issues and biodiversity protection.

The Case Against

Critics, however, raise substantial concerns that cut to the heart of what conservation should mean.

The most pragmatic objection centers on resource allocation. Conservationists point out that hundreds of critically endangered species in New Zealand and across Pacific islands desperately need funding right now. The millions—potentially billions—being poured into de-extinction could instead protect living species and their habitats. As one scientist bluntly put it: the idea of reviving the moa is "intellectually interesting, but really should be a low priority."

The animal welfare implications are troubling. De-extinction involves significant suffering along the way. Surrogate mothers must carry embryos of different species, cloning attempts frequently result in miscarriages and stillbirths, and successfully created animals may suffer from genetic abnormalities and chronic diseases. The bucardo—a wild goat that scientists briefly brought back in 2003—died just ten minutes after birth from lung defects, a sobering reminder of the cruelty embedded in these experimental procedures.

Then there's the question of authenticity. Would a bird created through genetic engineering truly be a moa? Critics argue that these would be modified emus or tinamous at best—genetic proxies rather than genuine resurrections. The creatures wouldn't carry the same complete evolutionary history, wouldn't possess all the behavioral and ecological knowledge accumulated over millions of years, and wouldn't be the exact species that once roamed New Zealand.

Perhaps most concerning is the "moral hazard" problem. If people believe extinction is reversible—that we can simply bring species back later—it could undermine urgency around preventing extinctions happening now. We're already experiencing the sixth mass extinction event, with species disappearing at rates far exceeding historical norms. De-extinction risks creating a dangerous complacency, suggesting we can afford to lose more species because biotechnology will bail us out.

The ecological questions are equally vexing. New Zealand's ecosystems have changed dramatically in 600 years. Would there even be appropriate habitats for reintroduced moa? What impacts would they have on native species that have adapted to a moa-free world? Would they thrive, or would they simply become expensive curiosities confined to reserves?

Indigenous Perspectives and Cultural Significance

What makes the moa project potentially different from Colossal's other ventures is the central involvement of the Ngāi Tahu, the main Māori tribe of New Zealand's South Island. This partnership represents a new model where Indigenous leadership guides scientific endeavors, integrating traditional ecological knowledge with cutting-edge biotechnology.

For the Ngāi Tahu, the moa represents a "taonga"—a treasured cultural element. As Kyle Davis, a Ngāi Tahu archaeologist, explains, their earliest ancestors lived alongside moa, and both archaeological and oral records contain knowledge about these birds and their environments. The project aims to respect this cultural significance while applying modern science to species restoration.

This Indigenous-led approach addresses one common criticism of de-extinction: that it's driven primarily by commercial interests and spectacle rather than genuine conservation values. By centering Māori perspectives and ensuring that all developed technology will be open-sourced for conservation purposes under Ngāi Tahu direction, the project attempts to avoid the worst excesses of biotechnology colonialism.

Playing God or Undoing Our Sins?

The "playing God" accusation frequently surfaces in de-extinction debates, but it may be the wrong framework entirely. Humans have already played God—we've driven countless species to extinction, radically altered ecosystems worldwide, and triggered climate change on a planetary scale. The question isn't whether we should interfere with nature (we already have, catastrophically) but rather how we should use our technological capabilities responsibly.

Some philosophers argue that our species' unique capacity for moral reasoning creates obligations that other animals don't face. We can recognize injustice, understand our historical impacts, and potentially make amends. From this perspective, de-extinction isn't hubris—it's humility combined with responsibility.

Others counter that this reasoning is dangerously arrogant. Nature has moved on from the moa. Ecosystems have reorganized around their absence. Attempting to restore a supposedly "original" state ignores that nature is dynamic, constantly changing. There is no pristine baseline to return to, only different configurations of ecosystems shaped by countless forces, including human activity.

The Bigger Picture

The moa project exists within a broader context of environmental crisis. Climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, and overexploitation are driving species toward extinction at unprecedented rates. In this moment of mass biodiversity loss, how should we prioritize our efforts and resources?

One view holds that prevention must come first. Every dollar spent on de-extinction is a dollar not spent protecting existing species and habitats. We should focus on preventing the extinction crisis from worsening rather than attempting technological fixes for past losses.

The alternative perspective suggests these aren't mutually exclusive. De-extinction research might generate technologies and knowledge that enhance conservation of living species. The publicity around projects like the moa could galvanize public interest and funding for broader conservation efforts in ways that traditional approaches haven't achieved.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between these poles. De-extinction represents both remarkable scientific achievement and potentially misguided conservation strategy. The technology demonstrates human ingenuity and our capacity to reverse some past harms. Yet it also risks becoming a distraction from more urgent priorities and fostering dangerous illusions about our ability to easily undo ecological damage.

Looking Forward

As Colossal Biosciences pushes forward with moa de-extinction, several things are becoming clear. First, this is no longer science fiction—the technical barriers to creating moa-like birds are surmountable. Second, the ethical questions won't be resolved by science alone. They require input from ecologists, ethicists, Indigenous communities, conservationists, and the broader public.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, we need robust regulatory frameworks before these technologies advance further. As one recent scientific analysis emphasized, de-extinction must not be guided by feasibility or commercial appeal alone. It requires multidisciplinary oversight, transparent public communication, and precautionary principles to prevent unintended consequences.

The moa project challenges us to think deeply about what we value and why. Do we pursue de-extinction because it's amazing that we can, or because we should? Is this about ecological restoration or technological spectacle? Are we trying to undo past injustices or creating new problems while current species cry out for protection?

Whatever happens with the moa, the project serves as a powerful mirror reflecting our relationship with the natural world. It reveals our capacity for both destruction and creation, our tendency toward both hubris and genuine remorse, and our struggle to balance technological capability with wisdom about how and when to use it.

As we stand at this crossroads between past extinctions and possible resurrections, perhaps the most important question isn't whether we can bring back the moa, but what kind of world we're creating for all species—extinct, extant, and yet to evolve. The answer to that question will determine whether projects like this represent humanity's redemption or just another chapter in our troubled relationship with nature.

---

The moa de-extinction project continues to develop, with Colossal Biosciences and the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre currently working on genome sequencing and DNA recovery from fossil sites across New Zealand. Whether we'll see living moa within a decade—and what that would truly mean for conservation, ethics, and our planet's future—remains one of the most fascinating and contested questions in modern science.