Ears to ground over rhino import bid
US university’s attempt to get sample from animal in Eastern Cape raises fears
THE US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have blocked a plan by the University of Washington to import an ear notch sample from a black rhino in the Eastern Cape, because of its connection with Pembient, a controversial US biotechnology firm producing fake rhino horn as a substitute for wild-caught horn.
The FWS found the proposed import would not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild “because the purpose of the import is unclear and because there is a possible connection to a commercial venture to produce artificial rhino horns”.
In November 2015, Dr Charles E Murry, a joint professor of pathology, cardiology and bioengineering at the university, applied for a permit under the US Endangered Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) of wild fauna and flora to import the sample from Ntombi, a female black rhino.
Murry and his team had hoped to use it to become the first to sequence the genome of the critically endangered black rhino for their Black Rhino Genome Project. The scientist told the FWS that the cell-biology studies were “aimed at understanding the biology of rhino hor n growth and heart development” and that sequencing the genome would facilitate subsequent studies of biodiversity within the population and among black rhino subspecies.
The project’s backers revealed how the genomic research could possibly “help bring the three extinct black rhino subspecies back into existence” but the FWS has taken issue with Murry’s connection with Pembient, which is using 3D bioprinting to fabricate wildlife products such as rhino horn and elephant ivory “to replace the illegal wildlife trade with sustainable commerce”.
Conservati o ni s t s have accused Pembient of seeking to profit from the rhino poaching crisis with its synthetic rhino horn.
Remarking on Murry’s application, the FWS singled out how he had written that “tissue engineers are interested in taking (stem) cells and developing rhino horn in the laboratory. These lab-grown horns could be useful as a substitute for poached horns.”
The FWS responded: “While the stated purpose of the import may provide benefits, your application raises the issue of use of the sequencing results to produce ‘lab-grown’ rhino horns.” The application was unclear “whether it (the ear notch sample) is for pure scientific purposes or in relation to the production of artificial horns”.
Murry had not identified his connection to Pembient. “In fact, Matthew Markus of Pembient wrote to the Department of Environmental Affairs lobbying on your behalf for the… export permit. While Pembient has stated the purpose of producing artificial rhino horn is to be a substitute for wild collected horns, thus reducing poaching, the service has grave concerns over the actual impacts that creating a legal source of rhino horn may have an on poaching of wild rhinos horns.”
Markus argued his company had “put up a proverbial Chinese wall to make sure that the University of Washington’s research is separate from Pembient’s development”.
“We’re disappointed a regulator would stymie basic scientific research, especially when the aim is to produce a publicly available genomic map, something scientists have done for numerous species, including other species of rhino, over the past decade,” he says.
“The correct regulatory response should have been to allow the importation of the ear notch. If a company developed lab-grown horns using information obtained from it, and there were compelling reasons against commercialising those horns, the regulator should forbid their export at that time.”
In 2015, the Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency entered into an agreement with Murry, but withdrew after questions were raised by the Department of Environmental Affairs. Last year, WildAid and the Centre for Biological Diversity, petitioned the FWS and the Obama administration to ban the sale and export of synthetic horn from Pembient.
Markus says a “fall-back plan” to map the genome of a rhino specimen taken from a museum in Washington was “preceeding apace” by Murry and his team.
Dr Jacques Flamand of WWF-SA’s Black Rhino Range Expansion Project, says the fake rhino horn trade should not be encouraged. “How will their artificial horn be differ- entiated on the market? The demand for real rhino horns is still going to be there.”
The Inter national Rhino Foundation and Save the Rhino International believes selling synthetic horn could lead to more poaching “because it increases demand for the real thing”. It points out how most horns in circulation are fake, yet poaching rates are still high.
Kim Da Ribiera, of the Outraged South African Citizens Against Rhino Poaching, compared biotech fir ms such as Pembient to poachers. “This is about making money from the rhino crisis. It’s as immoral as going out and poaching rhinos.”