Scientists work to bring animals back from extinction. The pros and cons.

Dodo BirdPhoto byMcGill LibraryonUnsplash

De-extinction, the process of bringing extinct species back to life, has long been a topic of interest and fascination for scientists and the general public alike. With the advent of advanced genetic technologies, de-extinction research has gained traction over the past few decades, offering a new way to address the problem of species loss and environmental degradation. While de-extinction may seem like an exciting prospect, it is also a subject of intense debate and controversy, with questions about its scientific feasibility, ethical implications, and potential risks.

The science of de-extinction

At the heart of de-extinction research lies the ability to extract DNA from fossils and museum specimens and use it to recreate the genome of extinct organisms. This is done through a process called genome sequencing, which involves decoding the order of nucleotides in a DNA molecule. Once the genome of an extinct species has been sequenced, scientists can use genetic engineering techniques to introduce the genes into the cells of a closely related living species, such as an elephant for the woolly mammoth, or a band-tailed pigeon for the passenger pigeon. The resulting embryo can then be implanted into a surrogate mother for gestation and birth.

While the science of de-extinction has made significant progress over the past few decades, there are still many technical challenges to overcome. One major hurdle is the quality of DNA that can be extracted from fossils, which is often fragmented and degraded. This can make it difficult to obtain a complete genome sequence and to ensure that the genetic material is authentic and not contaminated by modern DNA. Additionally, many extinct species were specialized and adapted to specific environmental conditions that no longer exist, making it unclear whether a revived population could survive and thrive in the modern world.

The potential benefits and risks of de-extinction

The potential benefits of de-extinction are numerous and varied. For one, it could help restore lost biodiversity and restore ecological balance in areas where species have gone extinct. Revived species could also serve as a valuable research tool, allowing scientists to study the biology and behavior of extinct organisms firsthand. De-extinction could also have important cultural and symbolic significance, providing a way to reconnect with extinct species and the natural world more broadly.

However, there are also significant risks associated with de-extinction. One major concern is the potential for unintended consequences, such as the spread of introduced genes into the environment or the disruption of existing ecosystems. Revived populations could also be vulnerable to disease or other threats due to their lack of genetic diversity. Additionally, there are ethical considerations involved in bringing extinct species back to life, including questions about the rights and welfare of the revived animals and the allocation of resources and funding for de-extinction research.

The ethics of de-extinction

The ethics of de-extinction are complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, there is a strong argument to be made for the intrinsic value of biodiversity and the moral imperative to prevent species loss. De-extinction could be seen as a way to redress the harm caused by human activities, such as habitat destruction and climate change, that have led to the extinction of many species. Additionally, de-extinction could provide new opportunities for conservation and restoration efforts, such as reintroducing revived species into the wild.

On the other hand, there are concerns about the welfare of the revived animals and the broader implications of de-extinction for human society. Revived species could be subject to new forms of exploitation, such as using them as attractions in zoos or for commercial purposes. There is also the question of whether de-extinction research diverts resources and attention away from more pressing conservation efforts, such as protecting existing endangered species and habitats.