5 Reasons to Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To)

By Breanna Draxler | April 4, 2013 1:36 pm

Mammoth statue in Parc de la Ciutadella in Barcelona, Spain. Image courtesy of Philip Lange/Shutterstock

Would you like to see a real, live wooly mammoth? Or how about a Tasmanian tiger in the flesh? Scientists have already finagled a few ways to resurrect extinct species from their evolutionary graves. Even muckier than the scientific methods themselves, though, are the social, ethical and legal ramifications of so-called de-extinction.

In Science today, two Stanford researchers tackle this tricky topic to parse out exactly what we have to gain and lose from de-extinction technologies. Using the passenger pigeon as a thought experiment, another paper in the same issue looks at the fears and excitement of leaders in the field of genomics.

There are three main ways of bringing back extinct species, according to the Stanford researchers: backbreeding, genetic engineering, and cloning. With backbreeding, scientists use a living species that is genetically similar to the extinct species, and selectively breed it for the traits of the now-extinct species. Genetic engineering depends on existing DNA samples of the extinct species; scientists could bring them back to life by targeting and replacing specific genomic sequences in a closely-related living species. Finally, if viable cell nuclei from the extinct species are available, it can be cloned using a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer—a tested but as-of-yet unsuccessful method for extinct species.

Based on the current state of the science, the Stanford researchers distill de-extinction down to five pros and five cons:

Benefits:

  • Scientific knowledge: De-extinction could offer insights into evolution and natural resources that are currently unavailable to us.
  • Technological advancement: De-extinction could be a big step forward for genetic engineering.
  • Environmental benefits: Threatened or damaged ecosystems could be restored with the help of certain now-extinct species.
  • Justice: If people pushed plant and animals species into extinction, perhaps we owe it to these species to try and bring them back.
  • Wonder: How cool would it be to see extinct species alive and kicking again?

Objections:

  • Animal welfare: People could be exploiting animals for solely human purposes, and may cause individuals of the de-extinct species harm.
  • Health: Species could carry retroviruses or pathogens when brought back to life.
  • Environment: De-extinct species would be alien and potentially invasive; their habitats and food sources have changed, so their roles in these changed ecosystems could be too.
  • Political: De-extinction may change priorities in other fields of science, such as medical research and the conservation of currently endangered species.
  • Moral: Is de-extinction playing god, or just plain wrong? It may also have unforeseen consequences.

If an extinct animal were brought back to life in the lab, the authors point out that it would still lack many of a species’ key characteristics, such as epigenetics, environment and social groups. Plus it would bring along with it a number of complicated legalities relating to the Endangered Species Act and patent laws. And that doesn’t even get into the messy world of if and how such resurrections should be regulated.

In the end, both papers seem to draw open-ended conclusions. But if the practice is really as inevitable as it seems, the authors say the most interesting part will be seeing how humanity reacts.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Environment, Living World, top posts
MORE ABOUT: de-extinction
  • JonFrum

    The anti- reasons are mostly goofy. People with those concerns have the same concerns about all species – or at least the warm and cuddly ones. And playing God? Anyone who signs off on that one should be denied the benefits of modern medicine.

    On the benefit side, the only one that really grabs me is the cool factor. We’re not going to have herds of Mammoths wandering the countryside,,but just to see one would certainly be cool.

  • tomcollins88

    Benefits:

    Scientific knowledge: I’m always for more scientific knowledge.

    Technological advancement: I place this the same as #1

    Environmental benefits: Agree if those species were native to the area before.

    Justice: Wholeheartedly agree. How can anyone say that we don’t have an obligation to bring back a species that we (humans) destroyed.

    Wonder: Would I like to see one? Yes. But that’s getting into some murky water.

    Objections:

    Animal welfare: What harm?

    Health: Retroviruses can be filtered out. The technology to do so already exists.

    Environment: Only bring back those species we have caused extinction of.

    Political: No, it won’t.

    Moral: As set in the guidelines I set above, then yes, it’s moral.

  • Carley H. Young

    Grayson. you think Bryan`s bl0g is impossible… I just got
    themselves a Jaguar E-type from having made $7239 this – five weeks past and in
    excess of ten-grand lass-month. it’s by-far the most-rewarding I have ever had.
    I started this eight months/ago and almost straight away was earning more than
    $79.. p/h. I work through this link,, fab22.comCHECK IT OUT

  • Barry Rudd

    Reading the list of pros and cons, it seems to me that the pros have it over the cons. If we can bring them back lets do it.
    The list of objections seems pretty weak.

    Jurassic Park here I come…

  • xiaoyanzi

    The only objection that I agree with is that there may be many unforeseen consequences to bringing back certain species. We should do our best, case by case, to think the ramifications through, to have a quarantine and observation process that helps ensure the species won’t be invasive or carry some unanticipated biological threat. On the whole though, I think it manageable, and worthwhile, because we will learn and grow our knowledge and be able to use that knowledge save many existing threatened species by increasing their gene pool, making them stronger, or maybe even helping them adapt past whatever is causing their demise.

  • Annonomyse

    Most Pro’s present in this information stand quite true i can’t help but notice, if we bring these extinct species back most will need many new anti-bodies and other immune system structuring. In their current structuring, most of their cells wouldn’t be able to defend themselves. It’s a good possibility that even the common cold/fever could render a species to a death bed

  • Ana P. AlGan

    you don´t need 5 reasons, just rent jurasic park and you´ll see why even if it is awesome is also a bad idea to bring back the extinct.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

D-brief

Briefing you on the must-know news and trending topics in science and technology today.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »