De-Extinction Is Closer Than Ever. But Is It the Right Move?
Advances in genetic engineering are making it possible to bring back extinct animals, but ethical and ecological concerns raise the question: should we?
I’m a runner. I have been for as long as I can remember, relishing in the freedom that moving my two legs provides. I have an on-again, off-again relationship with the sport, having done it in my youth for such a long time before stopping due to injuries becoming too great to ignore. I’ve done it all: 200-meter sprints to half-marathons (no, marathons have never piqued my interest).
When we first got Lobo, I pictured us going on runs around the neighbourhood. I had to wait a year and a half for his bones to settle and him to mature into his body before we could go on long runs, but it’s a special bonding moment we have when he looks up at me, tongue wagging, as we zig-zag through the dawn-kissed streets.
Until he abruptly stops to pee, poo, or just give something a very important sniff. On this one occasion of his sudden stopping, he practically ran me into a bus stop. Like many other bus stops in the area, this one was covered in graffiti, old event posters, and propaganda flyers. One such flyer caught my eye. A bright green and orange, it read: “Who gave us the right to play God? Say no to de-extinction.”
Before I could read any more, Lobo was tugging me back down the street, eager to read more pee-mail on his regular route. But all I could think about for the rest of the run was that flyer.
Who gave us the right to play God?
As the flyer boldly proclaimed, science is on the verge of turning extinction into a… temporary… setback rather than a permanent fate. With breakthroughs in genetic engineering, researchers are working to bring back species like the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and even the Tasmanian tiger. Once relegated to science fiction, I have to admit that the idea of de-extinction seems to be becoming a real possibility thanks to advances in cloning, gene editing, and stem cell technology. But while the prospect of reviving lost species is exciting (anyone who says it isn’t is lying, let’s be honest), it raises an urgent question I think we need to answer sooner rather than later: just because we can, should we?
De-extinction efforts rely on different methods, each with its own challenges. One approach involves extracting viable DNA from extinct species and inserting it into the egg of a closely related living relative. I’ve read that this is how scientists hope to revive the woolly mammoth by modifying Asian elephant DNA to include mammoth traits. Another method scientists are using to bring back the dead (in a sense) uses gene editing, like CRISPR, to reassemble the lost genetic blueprint of an extinct species using bits of DNA recovered from fossils. In some cases, selective breeding of existing animals is used to bring back traits of an extinct species, though this doesn’t technically recreate the original species but… well, like a close approximation to the ‘real thing.’
There’s no doubt about it: the technology is impressive.
But the ethical concerns make de-extinction a complex issue.
One of the biggest questions is whether bringing back extinct animals could disrupt today’s ecosystems. Species don’t exist in isolation; they evolve alongside their environment, their predators, and their prey. A species that disappeared thousands of years ago lived in an ecosystem that no longer exists (at least not in the same form). Even if scientists could bring back a mammoth, where would it live? The Arctic tundra is warming rapidly, and modern elephants already struggle to find enough habitat. Reintroducing an animal without a stable environment is basically setting it up for failure. And, personally, I find that cruel – bringing something back from the past just to suffer. It doesn’t sit right with me, and whenever I dwell on it, I can feel the pit in my stomach grow heavier.
Who are we to play God with nature? What gives us the right to say what lives and dies?
Extinction is a natural process, and while humans have accelerated it in modern times, doesn’t reviving species interfere with the balance of evolution? There is a reason Megalodon went extinct. Why dinosaurs no longer roam the Earth, towering over treetops. If we bring back extinct animals, where do we draw the line? Should we prioritize species that went extinct because of human actions, like the passenger pigeon or the thylacine? What about species that disappeared due to natural causes?
My mind sometimes dwells on these questions when I go for runs, the ethics of it all drowning out my music effortlessly as I pound the pavement of an otherwise quiet, cool morning. I count myself lucky I have Lobo to (literally) jolt my attention back to the present, as he stops to sniff the bark of a freshly-peed on tree or investigate who knows what in the dewy grass. Even though we passed that initial bus stop plenty of times, gone is the flyer… either ripped off or covered by something new. The ”next best thing,” if you will.
Is that what de-extinction is turning out to be? This cool, new project everyone wants to see succeed, not thinking through the consequences. If we invest resources into reviving extinct animals, do we risk neglecting the urgent need to protect species that are currently endangered? Personally, I believe that the money and effort going into these projects should go toward preserving species on the brink of extinction rather than resurrecting those already lost.
Why resurrect an animal from history, only to struggle in a world that can no longer support it, while species that belong here today are fighting for survival? After all, preventing extinction in the first place is far easier than trying to undo it later. The same technology that allows scientists to edit genes for bringing back extinct species can be used to protect endangered species. Why aren’t we doing that? Heck, genetic engineering could help present-day animals adapt to climate change, resist diseases, or even strengthen their genetic diversity.
There’s also the question of whether de-extinct animals would truly be the same as their original counterparts. A cloned or genetically edited mammoth might look like the prehistoric version, but without the same social structures, learned behaviors, and environmental conditions, it wouldn’t necessarily act the same. Many animals pass down survival skills through generations, and an artificially created individual wouldn’t have that advantage. No mother, no father, to show it the ropes. Even if it could be reintroduced, would it behave like a mammoth or more like a confused elephant with mammoth-like traits?
Despite these concerns that I and many others share and/or have voiced, some scientists argue that de-extinction could have benefits. Restoring lost species could help rebalance ecosystems that were disrupted by their disappearance. The woolly mammoth, for example, played a role in maintaining grasslands in the Arctic by trampling down trees and spreading seeds. Some researchers believe bringing back mammoths — or at least mammoth-like elephants — could slow permafrost thawing by maintaining the grasslands that help keep the ground cool. Similarly, reintroducing animals like the thylacine to Australia could help control populations of invasive species that have flourished in its absence.
The question of whether we should bring back extinct animals has no simple answer. While de-extinction could offer a second chance for lost species, it also comes with risks that can’t be ignored. If nothing else, the effort to revive lost species is pushing the boundaries of what we know about genetics, cloning, and ecosystem restoration, which could have broader applications for preserving biodiversity. But I can’t ignore this pit in my stomach that if we bring certain animals back, we may be looking at our own real-life version of Jurassic Park.
And didn’t we learn anything from that franchise?
This is a really thought engaging piece. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Hopefully, we'll do our best just to avoid extinction of what's left, us included.