A CONVERSATION with FREDERIC C. RICH about ESCAPE FROM EXTINCTION

Q: Escape from Extinction is an intriguing title. But what exactly does it mean? What’s this book about?
A: We’ve always thought of extinction as irreversible. But the ability to reverse extinction is one of the many extraordinary consequences of new genetic editing technologies, including the DNA-editing tool called CRISPR. The book uses fictional narrative to ask whether we’re ready to wield the power that these tools give us. Should we bring back extinct species? Should we change the basic blueprint of humanity? Should we hack evolution and engineer the natural world to suit our purposes?

Q: But why do this book as fiction? Why not just a scholarly or journalistic look at genetic editing and its consequences?
A: I’ve always believed that art and literature are a powerful complement to journalism and scholarship. Storytelling engages people in a way that scholarly exposition cannot. It’s one thing to understand how a technology like genetic editing might affect the world, it’s another thing to live it vicariously through characters struggling with what to believe and what to do. My goal is not to lecture people and tell them what to think, it’s to let them explore what their own values suggest is right, by immersing themselves in the difficult decisions faced by the characters.

Q: OK, but then what’s the difference between what you’re doing and normal science fiction?
A: Ned is not science fiction. The science is real, not speculative.

Q: You mean that “de-extinction” is a real thing? I thought that Jurassic Park, where they brought back the dinosaurs, was total fiction?
A: De-extinction is a real thing. In 2007, scientists brought back an extinct type of mountain goat, Ibex Pyrenean. Groups are now working on de-extincting the wooly mammoth and the passenger pigeon. The key is that these animals became extinct recently enough – within the past few hundred thousand years – that their DNA was recoverable from remaining bits of organic matter. The dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years – there’s no surviving DNA from that long ago.

Q: So you’re saying that a Neanderthal really could be brought to life with the present science and technology?
A: Yes. Neanderthals disappeared only 30–40 thousand years ago, so their DNA is recoverable. And not only is it recoverable, a Swedish scientist in 2010 succeeded in sequencing the Neanderthal genome. This means we have the “recipe” – a guide showing what edits you would need to make to human DNA to create a Neanderthal. The Harvard geneticist spearheading the project to de-extinct the woolly mammoth has said that he thinks the de-extinction of Neanderthals will occur in his lifetime. Whether it’s a good idea, well, that’s another thing altogether.

Q: So if a Neanderthal was brought back, how could you know what he or she would be like?
A: That’s a great question. What we now know is what genes the Neanderthals had; what we don’t know is what many of those genes were for. Think of it as knowing a cake recipe, but not being entirely sure what kind of cake you’ll get if you follow the recipe. But knowing the genome has advanced our understanding of Neanderthals tremendously. For example, we are now confident they had the power of speech. Ned, the Neanderthal character in the book, is a charming and empathetic young man with a dog-like sense of smell and great peripheral vision, and who may not have the ability to lie. He reflects what we know from anthropological evidence and genetic analysis, as well as a patchwork of speculation by scientists and other scholars.

Q: Why is everyone so interested in Neanderthals now?

A: Two reasons, I think. First, we have the rise of 23andMe and similar services, which report your percentage of Neanderthal DNA and explain to their customers that our Homo sapiens ancestors inter-bred with Neanderthals. That has intrigued many people. Second, I think our species has always been hopeful that, in some way, we find we’re not alone. Our fascination with extra-terrestrial life stems in part from this, and most people are interested to learn that once we were not alone; we inhabited this planet together with other intelligent species. It was far from inevitable that Homo sapiens would emerge at the top of the heap. And, given the mess we’re making of the planet, it’s not inevitable that we’ll remain there.

Q: You know, it’s not really clear from the book where you come down on these genetic technologies – do you think they’re a good thing, or not?
A: In the book, there are strong characters on both sides of the question. Leo, the biotech billionaire, wants to forge ahead. He thinks we’ve never had progress without taking big risks, and thinks that dramatic increases in human health and longevity are worth those risks. One of his allies tells Congress, “The day that one man invented fire, another guy became an arsonist. The prospect of both benefit and abuse is embedded in every technology, every advance. Where would we be if we had succumbed to our fear of arson, and banned fire?”

On the other hand, Leo’s buddy, the naturalist/hunter named Muir, has a visceral distrust of man taking control of his own genome and hacking evolution. He thinks that the essence of nature is that it isn’t under human control, and that if we start rewriting the human genome, at best we’ll muck it up, and at worst default to the horrors of eugenics. My own view? You won’t really find it in the book, but I think we should go full steam ahead using these technologies to cure disease and prolong life. I also think that we may need to use them in nature, cautiously and selectively, in order to survive climate change and existential threats like pandemics. But I draw a bright line at making permanent changes in what it is to be human. We are just not smart enough, wise enough or good enough to wield that kind of power.

Q: Wait, pandemics? Are you saying that genetic editing and Neanderthals have something to do with COVID?
A: Of course. Genetic technologies are central to the search to understand the virus, test for it, and develop a vaccine. But the present pandemic also illustrates how the DNA of extinct species, especially Neanderthals, might prove critical to modern humans. In July the New York Times reported that genes we inherited from Neanderthals might make people more or less susceptible to COVID. We already know that some Neanderthal genes carried by modern humans help defend against viruses. Other Neanderthal genes that have been “lost” – and that now can be restored using genetic editing – might very well help protect us from future pandemics.

Q: Both your prior books revolved around politics, one a dystopian novel and the other nonfiction. How did you make the leap from that to genetics and Neanderthals?
A: Not such a leap, actually. Much of Getting to Green is about the moral case for saving nature – what kind of interventions are good, and what kind bad? What responsibilities for nature and other species do we have as humans? These are the same issues at play in Escape from Extinction. Before going to law school, I did my graduate work in moral philosophy, so I have been reading and thinking about these things for a long time. I see public health and environment as closely related, and some years ago became involved with a public health school in Harlem and with the country’s oldest independent bio-ethics think-tank. The latter introduced me to de-extinction and the other genetic technologies not well known by the general public. When I found out that an eminent geneticist said that a Neanderthal could be brought back with present technology for only $30 million, I was hooked. I immediately saw the potential for a great story centered around the creator and his creation, and the controversy and drama that would inevitably follow.

Q: I see there have been a few other books, medical thrillers and the like, dealing with genetics. Also, there’s a long line of novels about Neanderthals. What makes your different?
A: In one sense, this is a book that gets written over and over, with only the technologies changing. For the myth of Prometheus, the technology was fire. For Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein novel, it was electricity. And yes, more recently we’ve seen some fiction in the genetics space, including Jamie Metzel’s The Genesis Code, Robin Cook’s Pandemic, and a “genetic thriller” by Kira Peikoff, Mother Knows Best. These mainly stuck to the medical implications of CRISPR. Escape from Extinction is the first involving de-extinction and exploring the implications of genetic editing for nature and the environment.

And you’re correct, our long-time fascination with Neanderthals is evidenced by a rich literature of Neanderthal fiction, most of it imagining Neanderthal life during the Pleistocene (e.g., H.G. Wells, The Grisly Folk (1921); William Golding, The Inheritors (1955); Jean Auel, The Clan of the Cave Bear (1980); and Bjorn Kurten, Dance of the Tiger (1980)), and some positing contact between Neanderthals and modern humans (e.g., Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, The Ugly Little Boy (1958); John Christopher, Dom and Va (1973); John Darnton, Neanderthal (1996); Mark Canter, Ember from the Sun (1996) and Claire Cameron, The Last Neanderthal (2017)). Escape from Extinction differs from all of these in exploring how the world might change if we once again shared the planet with a very different type of intelligent human.