De-extinction: How I learned to love Jurassic Park
Contributed by Zachary Sheldon
 |
| “Life, uh, finds a way.” |
I doubt there’s a person in America that doesn’t know the basic premise of Jurassic Park, even if they haven’t seen it. If somehow you’ve been under a rock, or perhaps have been extinct until recently, in simplest terms man brings back dinosaurs and frankly it doesn’t work too well. Despite all of the fail safes the implemented to prevent the dinosaurs from running amok and reproducing, as Dr. Iam Malcom said, “Life, uh, finds a way.” And the dinosaurs escape, breed, and kill. The lesson is man cannot control nature and we shouldn’t be messing with its past.
I’m here today to say that that message is wrong. Man has made a business of messing with nature, and de-extinction should be next up on our plate of awesome science to do. A common complaint among conservationists of less popular species is that the public isn’t interested in their efforts to save the 1-eyed-1-horned flying purple people eater for some reason and as such funding is tough to come by. But something that would get the public excited is de-extinction. In my opinion, if you started off with something the public is dying to see back, like wooly mammoths, you would have billionaire investors lining up to fund the project for the good publicity. The public would be going crazy over it, paying big bucks to see the first mammoth and even more to ride a mammoth. The funds raised by this could be used to conduct less popular conservation efforts around the world. And the knowledge gained from the de-extinction project could be applied to bringing back other more important species at a cheaper price.
I’m here today to say that that message is wrong. Man has made a business of messing with nature, and de-extinction should be next up on our plate of awesome science to do. A common complaint among conservationists of less popular species is that the public isn’t interested in their efforts to save the 1-eyed-1-horned flying purple people eater for some reason and as such funding is tough to come by. But something that would get the public excited is de-extinction. In my opinion, if you started off with something the public is dying to see back, like wooly mammoths, you would have billionaire investors lining up to fund the project for the good publicity. The public would be going crazy over it, paying big bucks to see the first mammoth and even more to ride a mammoth. The funds raised by this could be used to conduct less popular conservation efforts around the world. And the knowledge gained from the de-extinction project could be applied to bringing back other more important species at a cheaper price.
 |
| We may end up in a world without these delightful fellas. But de-extinction would give us ‘redo’ button.” |
While we currently have survived the extinction of several species without too much trouble, it’s not hard to imagine that sooner or later we may lose a very important species despite the best conservation efforts. One such species I have in mind is the honey bee. They’re dying off in droves and we aren’t sure why. In fact up to 90% of wild honey bees in America have died off. If lost there would be a massive impact both economically and ecologically, as both “The Bee Movie” and science can tell you. But if we had already brought species back from the void it would be more feasible that we could bring back the bee and prevent chaos. While it is never fun to imagine the worst case scenario, it is important to have a contingency plan in case that scenario does unfold. De-extinction can be our contingency.
Of course it’s not as simple as I’ve painted it to be. There are many issues that would need to be overcome on a species by species basis. Have new diseases been introduced since that species went extinct? Can the ecosystem in its current state support the new species? Did whatever cause it to go extinct in the first place still a problem? Back to my bee example, if they did go extinct from unknown causes it wouldn’t do us much good to bring them back just to watch them die off again. We’d have to have fixed the problem so that the reintroduced population could survive.
Beyond these potential issues to reintroducing extinct species, there are costs as well. First off, there is the simple economic cost. While I mentioned that popular support for some species could possibly lead to funding, it is naïve to think that would cover all costs. Current conservation projects have trouble finding funding, and it could possibly make it even tougher with funding going to these more popular programs. Nonetheless I feel that the increased public awareness of conservation would be worth this price. Another cost is the psychological impact being able to de-extinct species could have on the public. If we can bring anything back, why bother conserve it? It’s a legitimate concern but I feel with proper education and awareness programs it could be avoided. And of course there’s the always present “Should we play God?” question. Frankly every scientific breakthrough in my mind is in some way playing God so why stop now?
The benefits of de-extinction may not be the most clear. Not all species will provide an economic or ecological boost. And this process certainly won’t be cheap. But making the first computer wasn’t cheap either and no one could have predicted the impact that computers would make on the world. So to be frank, I feel like science for science’s sake is more than enough reason to support de-extinction.
If you want to read more about de-extinction check out this National Geographic site, it has a lot of different articles and videos on the topic. And if you’re interested in learning more about the honey bee disappearance take a look here.
The benefits of de-extinction may not be the most clear. Not all species will provide an economic or ecological boost. And this process certainly won’t be cheap. But making the first computer wasn’t cheap either and no one could have predicted the impact that computers would make on the world. So to be frank, I feel like science for science’s sake is more than enough reason to support de-extinction.
If you want to read more about de-extinction check out this National Geographic site, it has a lot of different articles and videos on the topic. And if you’re interested in learning more about the honey bee disappearance take a look here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-extinction, Bringing Back the Past to Right Wrongs?
Contributed by Kerry Jefferies
De-extinction, one of the newest concepts of revitalizing a species that had been lost to the world. With new technological advancements it has been found that the idea of returning species believed to be extinct is no longer science fiction, but an actual process. The species were lost due to various unfortunate circumstances commonly caused by humans, such as habitat destruction, overexploitation, or introductions of invasive species, to name a few. The question is, should we venture further into the depths of de-extinction, or should we leave it alone? The choice is out there, it has been asked, but the debate remains, to exist or not to exist? In order to configure some kind of opinion, one must know the facts such as the pros and cons, the reasons we would need a species, how bringing back a particular species would affect the ecosystems, or who is willing to take on the tedious task of preserving and maintaining a species enough to repopulate them. These facts are out there, just waiting to be read and reviewed.
Some of the key benefits of further driving these studies and reintroducing previously extinct species is that there is a second chance to right the wrongs done to these species, bringing them back when humans were, very commonly, the original cause of their extinction. Reintroducing some species could benefit an environment, particularly key species that are critical components to an environment that have been lost, and restoring cultural icons to many people. A few large problems with continuing this study is that some species could do more harm being brought back from extinction to the current inhabitants of the Earth, due to the climates changing and with it the ecosystems. Some species may cause substantial damage in an area they formerly inhabited, particularly if it has changed, causing them to die again or cause harm to the existing fauna and or flora in that area. Another issue is while some species have innate abilities to survive, others have to learn, and very commonly they learn from their parents or other members of that same species. Finally, the issue that can make de-extinction happen, or subdue it is the human influence. Some may not think very highly of the concepts of bringing something back to life, and others may believe that since a second chance has been given then a third or even a fourth chance will not be a “big deal.”
However, all of these obstacles that stand between restoring species have the possibility to be resolved. With the creation of an organization specifically set on determining whether a species should or should not return to the world there can be some order created in this powerful new responsibility. This organization, constructed by specialists that can bring in specific information on topics such as species habitat needs, cultural values, environmental concerns, key food web analyses, and local human influences. Such an organization would have the capability to properly analyze whether or not a species could return to the world and dictate what kind of actions would need to be taken in order for that particular species to make a comeback. If a species has a specific need, such as a learned trait, then a surrogate species can be found and determined if the connection would be plausible. As for the final issue, if people were connected and involved with this program in a positive way and well informed about the situation they would be more willing to cope with the ideas and interests that de-extinction has brought into perspective, because in the end we are trying to right wrongs and restore what we destroyed.
Further Reading:
National Geographic Article: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/
The Japan Times: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/23/world/de-extinction-nears-reality/#.UYnErbVwrzg
Singularity HUB: http://singularityhub.com/2013/04/11/jurassic-park-but-for-real-this-time-de-extinction-on-the-move/
Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-de-extinction-movement-all-about
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demystifying De-Extinction: What’s Feasible
Contributed by Austin Moore
To mankind, the world before our time is nothing more than a dream, and each new discovery details an Earth that we can barely conceive. In 1993 Jurassic Park shed new light on the dream, and many in the public started to believe that we may one day bring beasts of the past. Now, in 2013, our vision has weight as genetic advancements make de-extinction a realistic possibility and Ted Talks on the subject aim to garner support. There are still many details behind the science and hurdles of practical applications that need to be overcome before the procedure can take places. De-extinction is not without its skeptics though, but many argue against irrelevant details and unlikely occurrences.
The truth is that no one is interested in making a Jurassic Park, and the first revived animals would likely be used in scientific studies. The most practical application would mimic Russian geneticists domesticating foxes; they study the altered genes of their specimens and sell some of the others to fund their research. Bringing back a deceased organism is no doubt a costly process, yet once proven successful a unique species could be publicly displayed to continually fund ongoing research. Who wouldn’t want to learn about dinosaurs by seeing some of the smallest species, or see a live Wooly Mammoth? One cannot imagine how awestruck they would be when seeing an animal that had previously been dead for millions of years live a few feet in front of them. Most likely, interests in studying science, technology, engineering, and math would surge into the American school system following the first successful revival.
Ecological issues are the biggest concern of those arguing against de-extinction. Such as are their wild habitats available, would they impact extant species adversely, have we solved why they went extinct? They like to imagine that someone would release a megalodon and it would destroy endangered whale populations, or money would be spent on habitat-less organism that will only die out again. The majority of these arguments against the procedure are irrelevant. The field of advanced genetics is not full of fools, and definitely short of bleeding hearts. Each scientist working on the project knows how foolish it would be to release a temporally invasive organism into the ecosystem, and the first newly revived animals would most likely remain heavily guarded and inside labs. The only animals that could be released into the wild are those that have gone extinct in the past few thousand years. Outside of microscopic and single-celled organisms, nothing can speciate that quickly. Animals like Lonesome George, who recently died out, have left an open niche whose void is yet to be filled. Therefore, it would be all right to reestablish them into their original ecosystems.
De-extinction is on a fast track to occurring within the near future. There are still many concerns with the procedure, but the scientists behind it need to be trusted. They know better than to release organisms long dead back into the wild, and even if that was the original plan it would occur many years after the first revival. De-extinction could be used to study evolution, perfect phylogenies, and so much more if it was allowed to occur. Science is no longer as cool as it was during the space races, and interest is dying out in school systems. Not only would de-extinction greatly advance our knowledge and initiate new research, it would also open the door to our next dream, and let tomorrow’s scientists know that it can be done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-extinction: Wildlife biologist’s dream or nightmare?
Contributed by Benjamin Boyette
Until recently, de-extinction was seen as being little more than science fiction, although recent scientific and technological advances have pushed this topic much closer to reality. For instance, researches in Japan have stated that they plan to clone a wooly mammoth by 2015. Similar plans for the de-extinction of the passenger pigeon in the United States have also been presented. Wildlife enthusiasts and biologist are no doubt at least slightly intrigued and excited about the possibility of the reappearance of extinct species, but nonetheless divided as to whether this it is actually ethical or prudent from a wildlife conservation standpoint. Much debate persists as to whether it is even possible to bring back viable members of extinct species, but really the more contentious issues deal with as to whether we should even try.
Assuming that scientist could produce viable members of an extinct species, we then need to examine where these animals are going to live. Many, if not most extinct species disappeared due to a change or loss of habitat. Thus if we do bring back a species, we must provide it with suitable habitat or simply watch as it goes extinct again. For some more recently extirpated species habitat restoration might be possible. It is highly doubtful however that we could provide habitat to a species that died off thousands of years ago leaving us little real knowledge of what their exact habitat requirements are. One solution might be to only maintain populations of these species in captivity. Unfortunately, many species do not survive well in captivity, and it is to me quite questionable whether it is wise to invest huge amounts of resources to simply have “zoo pets” or “living museum specimens”. Thus it seems that de-extinction would only prove beneficial if we can first be sure that we have habitat that at least a “semi-wild” population can live in.
But suppose that we are able to bring back a species, and able to provide it with suitable habitat. This no doubt would have effects on extant species in several ways. First, one could argue that the time and energy spent on the de-extinction of one species would divert resources away from important work with extant species- some of which themselves may be on the brink of extinction. Secondly, will creating habitat could potentially make it un-hospitable for living species. In some cases this might be reasonable and justified, but would carefully need to be considered in each instance. Finally, we would need to consider how the very presence of a long-extinct animal would affect living species and balance within an ecosystem. Likely, there would be some species that would benefit from reintroduction of extinct species, especially some that might have once had symbiotic relationships with the species went extinct. Knowing what other species might be negatively affected, and assessing the overall effect on balance would become of upmost importance before making any decision to re-introduce a formerly extinct species. Unfortunately, wildlife professionals have a difficult time assessing these balances in current ecosystems with well-studied species. This leads me to conclude that adding a species back into an ecosystem would be at best a slightly educated “shot in the dark” in most instances.
One of the more compelling arguments in favor of de-extinction is that humans have some type of responsibility to bring back some of the bio-diversity that they have been responsible for removing. In many ways it would seem only just for humans to return species that they might have helped push out of existence, although it is really quite complex. In cases where species were pushed to extinction through over-exploitation and careless management, there is a stronger sense that maybe we should bring it back. On the other hand, we must recognize that many practices that negatively affect some wildlife species are not necessarily simple cases of wanton extirpation. For instance, if a species has gone extinct due to loss of habitat because of farming, it becomes more difficult. Reverting large amounts of farmland into an earlier habitat type to attempt to reintroduce an extinct species would result in a loss of human food sources and possibly some human starvation. While this is somewhat of an extreme example, it does illustrate that we must be careful to balance human well-being with bio-diversity. A final complexity in this puzzle is that it is not always definite the influence humans have had on a species’ extinction. Extinctions also occur “naturally” apart from human influence, so we really could not make a foolproof case that humans are responsible to restore all the species they have helped push to extinction.
All things considered, I think that de-extinction is an intriguing idea although there would be limited instances where it could be seriously considered in terms of managing wildlife. I remain skeptical that it will ever become practical or useful to actually bring back a wild population of an extinct species. If it were to be used several important criteria would have to be met. First, any technique would have to be proven to actually be able to produce viable members of a species. Next we would have to be reasonably certain that we were reintroducing a species into a habitat that it actually could live in without negatively impacting the current ecosystem. Finally, we would need to assess the impact of a re-introduction on human populations. Any decision would ultimately need to include the overall cost of meeting these criteria compared to possible benefits of a species’ de-extinction. As a general rule, I think it would be more desirable and effective to focus our efforts on conserving extant species than attempting to bring back extinct ones.
Additional reading:
All things considered, I think that de-extinction is an intriguing idea although there would be limited instances where it could be seriously considered in terms of managing wildlife. I remain skeptical that it will ever become practical or useful to actually bring back a wild population of an extinct species. If it were to be used several important criteria would have to be met. First, any technique would have to be proven to actually be able to produce viable members of a species. Next we would have to be reasonably certain that we were reintroducing a species into a habitat that it actually could live in without negatively impacting the current ecosystem. Finally, we would need to assess the impact of a re-introduction on human populations. Any decision would ultimately need to include the overall cost of meeting these criteria compared to possible benefits of a species’ de-extinction. As a general rule, I think it would be more desirable and effective to focus our efforts on conserving extant species than attempting to bring back extinct ones.
Additional reading:
Japanese Scientist Says We’ll Have Mammoths by 2015.
Bringing Back the Passenger Pigeon.
Wildlife conservation and reproductive cloning.
Bringing Back the Passenger Pigeon.
Wildlife conservation and reproductive cloning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You Don’t Know What You Have Until It’s Gone
Contributed by Chandler Eaglestone
Merriam-webster.com defines conservation as a “careful preservation and protection of something; the planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.” Rather than preserve species before they become extinct, de-extinction has given rise to a way of bringing back a species after it is gone. Recently, scientists in Australia announced they had reproduced the genome of the gastric brooding frog, which was declared extinct in 1983.
This was made possible by taking tissue from a preserved brooding frog specimen and implanting it in the egg of a closely related species. While the embryos did not survive for long, this gave hope to technological optimists that we may now be able to bring extinct species back from the dead. Causes for the gastric brooding frog’s extinction are not clear; however, habitat loss and pollution may have contributed. Amphibians are widely regarded as indicator species because they are sensitive to changes in their environment; therefor, a decline in population size means a decline in environmental health. De-extinction can bring back important indicator species such as the gastric brooding frog; however, it will not solve the decline in environmental health which may have caused its demise. Although some argue de-extinction will help preserve biodiversity and restore diminished ecosystems, it will require us to redefine the meaning of conservation from preventing exploitation to reversing exploitation. While de-extinction could provide more information on what caused a species to become extinct, how to restore genetic variability and give insight on how to prevent future extinctions, it is an expensive and lengthy process that will cause people not to care about saving a species before it becomes extinct. It may seem like a novel idea to be able to show previously-extinct species to future generations, as it would give insight on what life used to be like when there was much species diversity. De-extinction, however, will be seen as a solution that will allow humans to further exploit nature and procrastinate on conserving important species that are on the brink of extinction. De-extinction focuses on bringing back one species at a time, when what we need to focus on is the bigger picture of solving problems such as habitat destruction and pollution. Technological optimists will jump at the idea of de-extinction, as it allows humans the perk of not changing our lives for the betterment of the environment. However, it is uncertain whether or not de-extinction could ever restore species to the populations they once were. As said by Baba Dioum, “In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught.” Humans must be taught the importance of saving species before they become extinct, thus saving us the trouble of bringing them back from extinction while attempting to maintain a balanced ecosystem. We may feel like we owe something to nature after causing so much destruction, and that the answer to this may be to bring back species from extinction. However, we need to look at extinction as a lesson: Nature is fragile and irreplaceable, and we should not take it for granted. We must not rely on de-extinction as a way of making things the way they used to be, because you don’t know what you have until it’s gone.
For Further Reading: NPR, National Geographic
For Further Reading: NPR, National Geographic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fairytale or Distraction?
Contributed by Sally Dry
As kids we all used to wish for unicorns to be prancing around the hills and for mermaids to be swimming in the depths of the ocean. Sadly, these dreams will always be fairytales. Instead today with our immense technological improvements we may be able to bring back animals that once roamed the earth - now whether we should or not is hotly debated. But even that the possibility of such phenomena is achievable is a fairytale in itself.
The pattern of evolution is that species go extinct and new ones with adaptations arise through time. These modified species are the most fit for the environment; they have acquired the traits that make them superior to others of their kind. The woolly mammoth which went extinct 3,400 years, is facing the possibility of being recreated so that it can live on earth again. But if evolution is a natural process, why should the woolly mammoth be brought back? Some say it went extinct because humans hunted it, but then again we humans used the mammoth as a resource so that we could survive. In the end one animal is another animal’s resource. This is not to say that humans should exploit animals for their resources but instead we should understand that in the grand scheme of things species come and go and not all of them can be saved.
With our ever expanding human population, areas that species once inhabited are being destroyed at an alarming rate. The thylacine, which lived in Tasmania and Australia, was extirpated in 1936. One could say it’s the size of a German Shepard, but with stripes like a tiger, and a demeanor but shier than that of the Tasmanian devil. It primarily lived on the coastal lands as a top predator. But today, most of Australia’s population lives on the coast where this species used to preside. Their habitat has been destroyed and they will not be able to be the predators they once were. Their ecological importance has shifted, and the food chain has moved on. Therefore, the thylacine which once lived cooperatively in the ecosystem, if introduced again, may present unforeseen complications to the modern ecosystem.
Little can be justified for the progression of de-extinction. But if disputed one may be able to argue that it us humans that drove countless numbers of species to extinction. There seems to be a good argument there because surely without the carelessness of humans the passenger pigeon would still be around today. Therefore, it is understandable that some believe it is our moral responsibility to bring back species we so carelessly destroyed. We should, if trying to improve biodiversity, bring back species that were once important to the environment. In the end, if we are morally decent don’t we owe it to the species we ourselves pushed into extinction to bring them back? It is callous of us to disregard the animals that live on our planet for without many of them the world we know could not exist. For these reasons, de-extinction seems like a good idea and one that should be executed.
However, we cannot ponder about what has happened but we need to look ahead to what may happen? It is vital that all our resources and time go into preserving the species that are still around today. In this way we will not lose focus on what is important, and that is saving the species of today. It may seem feasible to go back and correct mistakes but then why today are we still seeing species go extinct? We obviously have not yet learnt from the past if we are making the same mistakes again. The focus should be on stopping the damage we are causing right now. That is our foundation, and the idea of de-extinction is just a distraction.
To help form your own opinions, here are some sources to look at:
New York Times article
Zimmer, Carl. "The New Age of Exploration." National Geographic. N.p., Apr. 2013. Web. 08 May 2013.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-Extinction: A Step Forward, but in the Right Direction?
Contributed by Baron Lin
Has science fiction become a reality? Scientists around the world have been working on de-extinction, which intends to bring back and resurrect already extinct species. While this may be a leap for the field of science technology wise, how would these species fair in modern times? Is it actually worth the time and money to actually carry out de-extinction? While sci-fi fanatics may be drooling at the thought that Jurassic Park may become a reality, we need to consider the costs and benefits. We don’t want these wooly mammoths and passenger pigeons to end up like this confused old farmer.
The fact that we are actually making this much progress in the field of evolutionary biology and genetics is astounding, but following through with the de-extinction movement can be detrimental to a plethora of ecosystems. A variety of these already extinct species didn’t disappear for one specific reason. Many of these species went extinct because of changing environments and a lack of food, or they were unable to adapt to change. These species won’t be able to adjust to current ecosystems especially with today’s conditions; increased temperatures, heavy amounts of pollution, an ever increasing human population. Even if these species were to somehow thrive in today’s times, the amount of genetic diversity within the few resurrected species would guarantee a swift and extremely short lifespan. With a small gene pool to choose from, many of these resurrected species would be forced to breed within their small family, increasing chances for harmful mutations. With increased mutations, these species will be more susceptible to disease. While the idea is extremely entertaining and interesting, the costs just outweigh the benefits.
But what if we get the technology to solve the lack of genetic diversity and create ecosystems suitable for these extinct creatures? We are making the technological advancements to maybe succeed, but de-extinction advocates may not be considering the management difficulties behind the movement. Some of these creatures, including the stellar sea cow, wooly mammoth, and leviathan-like megalodon, are so large, that it would be nearly impossible to manage a number of these species. Not only would these animals be extremely hard to manage and control, the surrounding environments would be a huge task to take care of. Some may argue that some small extinct species may not have a large impact on its ecosystem, but we cannot be sure about that. Managing current ecosystems is already a huge task for wildlife biologists. You think it would be too much of a task to throw a couple of previously extinct species on top of these scientists. They already have countless endangered and near-extinction to manage and take care of. We can’t simply throw in resurrected species and expect them to behave accordingly without any problems.
 |
| We don’t want this to happen again... |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-extinction De-bunked
Contributed by Casey Maynard
Science has yet again come up with a mind-blowing and controversial possibility: bringing extinct species back to life. The first step in this seemingly science fiction phenomenon is sequencing the full genome of the extinct species to be brought back to life and then comparing it to a similar species. From there the genetic material that needs to be changed from the similar species to be more like the extinct species is synthesized to form the genome of the extinct species. The result of this process is stem cells of the extinct animal which are then converted into germ cells (sperm and egg), which can then be transplanted into a genetically similar surrogate species, most likely the one from which the DNA was altered. But that isn’t the end; the result from these genetically altered eggs is not the extinct species, but the surrogate species which now carries the makings of the extinct species. When these animals mate, the extinct species is then created and given birth to.
Now I’m pretty sure dinosaurs are off the list of animals to bring back, seeing as what happened with Jurassic park, but some of the animals scientists are considering bringing back are the thylacine, the Carolina parakeet, the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and many more. With an idea of how this can happen and what kind of creatures are looking at being brought back let’s delve into the pros and cons of this new reality.
To conclude, de-extinction comes with many positive and negative aspects and the idea that we now have the science to bring back these remarkable and extinct creatures is whimsical, but is it the best idea? People would most likely become more captivated by wildlife with the introduction of extinct species. Comparable to how people all over rejoice when a baby panda is born, they would follow the struggles and successes of these introduced animals and knowledge about and desire for conservation may increase. The ability to resurrect extinct species should not become a pardon for human irresponsibility in taking care of the extraordinary animals we currently have on Earth however. We should be focusing most on current conservation efforts to preserve and restore currently endangered or threatened species and save re-introducing extinct species for when they would have a stable ecosystem to come back into, not just as a reprieve for our past carelessness.For more information, check out these resources:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-de-extinction-movement-all-about
http://www.ted.com/tedx/events/7650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extinction: A thing of the past?
Contributed by Sarah Schneider
Extinct: meaning that which is no longer in existence - that has ended or died out
This definition may die out in the future as we are looking at science being able to bring back animals we thought were gone forever. This de-extinction movement is becoming stronger, bigger, and gaining more ground on the genetics forefront. The concept is strait forward enough: use an extinct animal’s DNA to replicate a sperm and egg and then implant that fertilized egg into a surrogate species closely related to the extinct animal. Simple right? Well, not really considering that some of the animals scientists want to bring back from extinction closest living relatives are endangered themselves. The Tasmanian Tiger is one of these species, whose closet living relative would be the Tasmanian devil who is not only much smaller but also endangered right now due to the devastating Devil facial tumor disease. Do we really want to add to the hardships the Devils are already facing by using them as surrogates?
As humans we are always looking for the next thing, something better, the next fix. Considering that many extinct species like the Steller’s sea cow, Woolly mammoth, and passenger pigeon became extinct because of us maybe scientists are just trying to fix what we have broken? Since it was us who overhunted and eradicated species thousands of years ago it is now our responsibility to bring them back with our new technologies? I’m not sure. I believe that it may be we want to bring these species back just because we can. De-extinction wants to resurrect single, charismatic species, yet millions of species in our world today are at risk of extinction.
Overall, while de-extinction is a fascinating and exciting aspect I think that we should put it on hold until we learn to better conserve the species that we already have. Yes it would be astonishing to one day go to a zoo and instead of an elephant exhibit they have woolly mammoths, but why can’t we just be content with the elephants? Why must we always want to strive for more, always the next best thing. Don’t get me wrong, evolving technology as well as management practices is what will help us conserve our endangered species. I’m just saying that we should stop living in the past, live in the present, and look to the future. We should appreciate the past and learn from the mistakes that our ancestors made, and build upon those to create a brighter future. One where we can save and conserve the species we currently have. Until then I believe the proposition of de-extinction should become extinct.
Further reading about de-extinction: National Geographic, Scientific American
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-extinction movement, for it or against it?
The de-extinction movement has been an ongoing debate among conservation biologists and ecologists for the past decade. There are valid points on either side of this issue. I personally believe that while this field is a valid area of study, I do not believe that it is a scientific priority at this time. In our current political climate, areas of study that have more of an immediate social impact should receive more attention such as habitat preservation and climate studies. While I do not believe the de-extinction movement is a top priority, I do strongly think that there are many pros and cons about this topic that will one day lead to greater scientific advancement.
References:
1. "De-extinction |." N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2013.
2. "De-Extinction." National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2013.
3. "TEDx 'De-Extinction' Debate: Is Respawning The Wild A Good Idea?" International Business Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2013.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye is Not Forever
Contributed by Katy Lawler
Every year, countless species are lost. The lowest estimates are around two hundred. The highest are in the tens of thousands each year. Some are known to be endangered, but most are gone before even being discovered. Extinction is a loss to society. Extinction is a loss to science. Extinction is final.
Or is it?
In recent years the topic of de-extinction has been thrown around in many scientific circles, and has met many different reactions. Some have deemed it impossible and laughed, some have described it as folly, but some have been working to make it a reality. The line between the past and present is becoming blurred as geneticists and conservationists become increasingly closer to making de-extinction an option. But controversy abounds.
Many argue that de-extinction does not address the primary focus of conservation: preservation. We have countless species dying off each year, innumerable animals lost. The focus should be on saving the species we have left. The cost of resurrecting an animal from its DNA is astronomical. Between money and the time and research that must be put into a project this large to give it a hope of success, many extant species could be given a chance at surviving another decade. Many more argue that even if an animal were to return, the causes of extinction have not been addressed. The animal did not survive for a reason. The problems of habitat loss, over exploitation, and disease, among others, still exist, and will bring these species back into the ground where they have rested for generations. De-extinction is a fantasy. We live in the real world.
De-extinction does not undermine the importance of current preservation needs. Many species will not be able to survive even the most dramatic of conservation plans. Chytrid fungus is killing off frogs at a faster pace than we will be able to save them. If we are able to preserve DNA samples, we may be able to preserve a species with it. Devil facial tumor disease is causing the deaths of Tasmanian devils at a rate that they cannot recover from. If DNA is preserved from a healthy animal, we will have a second chance at saving them if all of them die off.
Further Reading:
Information on current extinction rates.
Tedx talk on de-extinction of the gastric brooding frog and thylacine.
Information on the DNA aspect.
Article from the journal Science on de-extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTRL+C, CTRL+V: Cloning and the “De-Extinction” Movement
Contributed by Ashley Lohr
From the beginning of time, an abundance of species have roamed this earth, ranging in size from unicellular amoebas to large jungle cats to the mysterious giants we commonly refer to as dinosaurs. Some species can be harmful or dangerous to humans, such as the protozoan parasite that causes malaria or a black bear mother protecting her cubs. Some species are gentle or provide comfort, such as dolphins or domestic cats and dogs. And still others are struggling to remain on this earth or have already lost their battles such as the Bengal tiger or the passenger pigeon, respectively. What is the primary reason for the decline of these species? You’ve probably guessed correctly. The answer is humans. We play a significant role in the destruction of habitat through deforestation or the release of toxic chemicals and pollutants. You’re probably thinking it is our responsibility to conserve these species and their habitats since we are not the sole inhabitant of this planet. If so, many people would say you are correct in holding that view. However, is it too late?
Within the last fifteen years or so, scientists have been using a cloning method (known as somatic cell nuclear transfer that has brought hope to the wildlife community. With the ability to successfully clone an organism that can survive to sexual maturity and reproduce, we just might be able to bring back recently-extinct, or even long-extinct, species. Unfortunately, this is quite possibly one of those “too good to be true” scenarios. Cloning wildlife, or “de-extinction,” has its benefits, but it also has a multitude of disadvantages.
What is cloning and how do scientists do it? To put it simply, during somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), the genetic material (or DNA) is removed from an egg cell. DNA from the animal to be cloned is then infused into this now-empty egg cell and the cell is artificially stimulated to start developing into an embryo. This cell/DNA bundle is then injected into a surrogate mother who will carry the growing embryo and eventually give birth to it.
This sounds feasible, right? Cloning has been used in livestock production for years now, so why not use it for wildlife? Cloning does have its benefits, although very few. The obvious advantage is it enables us to recreate individuals that were previously extinct. With time, these individuals would hopefully reproduce and contribute towards reestablishing populations in the wild. Another advantage is that DNA can be obtained from some critically endangered or threatened species and scientists can attempt to create clones using surrogates that are actually the clones’ natural wild counterparts. Unfortunately, this is about as far as the advantages of “de-extinction” go.
 |
| As scientists continue to develop and perfect current cloning techniques, we may be able to restore viable populations of previously extinct species, such as this southern gastric-brooding frog (Rheobatrachus silus). |
Let’s now focus on the disadvantages which happen to pose some serious scientific, cultural, and environmental obstacles. First of all, current cloning techniques have less than a 5% success rate, and cloning wildlife is often less than 1% successful. Because of this, hundreds of eggs are needed since only a small portion of them will develop into embryos, and potentially only one of those embryos may reach adulthood. This would obviously have no impact on population density if this individual were to be placed in the wild. Clones can also experience problems during later development: often they are born with abnormally large organs which can lead to breathing and blood flow problems. Scientists have termed this “Large Offspring Syndrome” (or LOS), but they cannot reliably predict which offspring will develop LOS. Additionally, clones that don’t display LOS can still have kidney, brain, and immune system problems. Lastly, the reproductive physiologies of many threatened and endangered species are poorly understood, and on top of this there are legal protections preventing scientists from harvesting eggs from many threatened species. As a result, domestic species are often used as surrogates. Consequently, clones are NOT identical to their natural counterparts and are technically hybrids (a cross between two different species). This can then alter the genetic diversity within wild populations.
As you can see, using cloning as a tool to conserve endangered species of wildlife is proving to be quite unfeasible. So what alternatives should we focus on instead to conserve our threatened and endangered wildlife? The answer is simple, really. We need to focus on addressing the root of the problem: the reasons that animals become endangered in the first place. Some of these reasons include habitat destruction, poor hunting practices, poaching, and even competition from invasive species (species that weren’t originally found in a certain country or region and therefore create competition and stress towards native species). These problems are obviously not going to be fixed overnight, but with time the survival rates of many populations of endangered species can drastically increase. For example, poaching education is being provided to people of Africa to educate them on how they are negatively impacting their native wildlife as well as to provide alternatives to them on how to make a living, since many people poach and sell things on the black market in order to clothe and feed themselves and their families.
 |
| You can’t clone habitat! |
Therefore, while cloning has value and could theoretically help in desperate situations, current cloning techniques are simply too ineffective to make much of a difference. Now that you know more about cloning, the disadvantages that revolve around it, and other ways to address conservation, I hope you can see that while genotype (or the genetic makeup of an organism) is important, conservation efforts should focus around cultural and environmental factors when considering how to conserve wildlife species. Just remember, “You can’t clone habitat!”
Further reading: Article 1, Article 2, Article 3:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Ray of Light
Contributed by Will Kennerley
“We are looking upon the utmost finality which can be written, glimpsing the darkness which will not know another ray of light. We are in touch with the reality of extinction.” –Henry Beetle Hough
 |
|
A photograph of a live Heath
Hen, taken around 1909
|
Recently there has been much talk about a practice referred to as de-extinction – the bringing to life of a once-extinct species using modern genetic techniques. The idea is not a new one, but having the scientific capability to make a species de-extinct is. De-extinction utilizes surrogate parent species implanted with the embryos of extinct species that are then able to be birthed as a once-extinct organism. Proponents of de-extinction raise the topic of humans being able to live alongside passenger pigeons, thylacines (Tasmanian Tigers), and even wooly mammoths. Possible? Yes. Controversial? Absolutely.
The real story is far more complex than that, however. De-extinction could cost unbelievable amounts of money that just aren’t there in conservation. Even if it were, would it be right to divert that money and those resources away from species still alive and still fighting for survival? Most say no, and justifiably, in my opinion, for there is no shortage of conservation issues out there, from chytrid fungus to white-nose syndrome, that could desperately use all the funds they can muster if we are ever to find solutions for them. De-extinction, at least in the form of viable, self-sustaining, wild populations for some species sounds difficult to imagine. Passenger pigeons relied upon immense flocks of hundreds of thousands of birds (and often much more!) as protection against predators; is it feasible to create and release this magnitude of organisms from a lab? Is there even room for these populations anymore? For numerous species, the reasons behind their extinctions, be they loss of habitat, pollution, or because of an introduced species, are still out there, and creating these organisms in a lab and then releasing them would do little.
So as de-extinction continues to become more and more of a discussion topic, I find it increasingly risky to support this type of practice. Many conservation issues still exist and we cannot afford to have de-extinction take away the funds and attention given to those species that still have a fighting chance at life. Let us not take the conservation spotlight away from those that still need it! Sad as extinction of any species may be, perhaps it is right to leave extinction as “the utmost finality which can be written” and accept the fate of the species as lost – there is plenty of good to be done elsewhere.
Additional information, from both sides of the argument, can be found at http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leave the Dead, Dead
Contributed by Patrick Roden-Reynolds
Like many other scientists, I am caught in the gray area when it comes to De-extinction. There are multiple benefits but also negative consequences from bringing an animal back from extinction. One must evaluate the ethical considerations from creating life or recreating life that no longer exists. Nature adapts for specific reasons. Is it a smart idea to counteract the evolution of the natural world? In the past, extinction has been permanent. Nothing can come back from being extinct, which is why scientists or ecologists fear it and continue to combat extinction through various conservation practices. If researchers are able to revive life through cloning what are the implications for future conservation. Do we care less about conservation and management of a species in its natural habitat because we have “back-up drives” of its DNA and can be readily reintroduced? There are also ethical arguments supporting the de-extinction of certain species. Humans are the primary driving force behind some extinction. In the past, humans recklessly exploited resources. Is the de-extinction movement a second chance for the human race to reverse the harm they have done? However, the motive behind de-extinction should be ecological rather than assuaging the guilt of humans. The last ethical question to pose is, “what are the first research priorities?” Should scientists spend money and time on idea that could end up a pipe dream, or do they focus on the current endangered species to prevent further extinctions? What are the ecological implications? For starters, a successful reintroduction of an extinct species will regenerate the prehistoric natural order. Reintroduction of a keystone species could help balance the ecosystem and reverse any ecological disasters brought on by the human race. Scientists have the chance to create something no one has ever seen before, and not following through with the project just because we fear the outcomes is not sound science. However, doing science for science’s sake isn’t ethical either. There are many problems that arise with de-extinction. Some of these organisms have not been present in the natural world for over 100 years. The land, flora, and fauna have greatly diversified in that period. Will we know for sure how the new organisms will react? They could fall behind on the evolutionary time scale and be outcompeted in the first place. On the other hand, they could morph into an invasive species such as zebra mussels or cane toads and have unforeseen consequences. The last question to surface is the process of cloning. Would scientists be reviving a lost species or create a new mutant species when the ancient DNA mixes with the host cell. Even if the cloning were to turn out successful there would not be enough individuals to continue a healthy population. The reintroduced individuals would suffer from low genetic diversity caused by founders effects. Read more about Founder Effects here.
Personally, I believe we should leave the dead, well dead. There are too many questions that still need to be addressed before De-extinction can be seriously considered. Who knows if the reintroduction on an animal will cause the extinction of another? We need to prioritize our time, effort, and resources to focus on currently threatened species and their habitats.
Further Reading:
Bergquist, Lee. "University of Wisconsin Professor Questions Efforts to Reverse Extinction." University of Wisconsin Professor Questions Efforts to Reverse Extinction. Journal Interactive, 23 Mar. 2013. Web. May 2013.
Mitchell, Bill. "Expiration Fate: Can "De-Extinction" Bring Back Lost Species?: Scientific American." Scientific American. N.p., 31 Mar. 2013. Web. May 2013.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extinction: a Modern ParadoxContributed by Sterling Pino-DeGale
In a time when we are doing our best with technological advances, it is likely that we may be pushing our boundaries in science with the idea of de-extinction.
In regards to conservation, this seems like the ultimate accomplishment as we animal lovers will no longer fear losing a beloved species to problems such as pollution, climate change, and deforestation. Scientists may be able to gain new knowledge to fill in any blanks that they had regarding the species or close relatives of the species being reintroduced, and may also develop techniques for protecting and preserving future generations.
But when does it stop? When is the line drawn that says that too many animals are being brought back from extinction? When will people begin to change their habits for the preservation of these species and for how long will people care?
Modern day elephants consume up to 440 pounds of vegetation each day in addition to 60 gallons of water. If we cannot even afford to provide developing nations with food and fresh water, how are we supposed to fund an entire species whose individuals consume as much as a human would in around two months, in one day? People must ask themselves, is this really a responsibility that we would like to take on or an animal that we would like to encounter for that matter?
Before we can even delve deeply into the logistics, what is it that brought these creatures to extinction in the first place? In the case of the 12 ton Steller’s sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas), human consumption through hunting and depletion of resources were enough to eradicate an entire population within a period of around thirty years. If this species is brought back, scientists will likely use the dugong (Dugong dugon) as a vector. The dugong is a bit smaller than the sea cow, but forages on the same thing, aquatic kelp. Since the sea cows are larger than the dugong, they might out-compete them for resources through sheer size and predictably larger consumption, therefore having the potential to deplete the dugong populations found today.
Aside from ecological data, we must come to the realization that just as quickly as people may be willing to give to conservation efforts, others may not due to the impression that animals can freely be brought back. This will cost more than we can afford and new regulations and laws prohibiting hunting will take time and money. It will also negatively impact our society in regards to sustainability and agriculture, and the likelihood of clonal survival is very low.
As people of this ever changing world, we must understand that it is in our best interests to learn from the management practices failed in previous generations, and adapt our world to better sustain human life. While the idea of a real-life Jurassic Park may seem interesting and inviting, it is not something that we should walk ourselves into. Rather than selecting a few species to revitalize, we should appreciate the species that currently exist and maintain their populations so that extinction is not an issue.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Paul K. “COMPETITION, PREDATION, AND THE EVOLUTION AND EXTINCTION OF STELLER’S SEA COW, HYDRODAMALIS GIGAS.” Marine Mammal Science 11.3 (1995): 391-94. Wiley Online Library. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 26 Aug. 2006. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguing with Myself: Is Species Revival Plausible?
Contributed by Alexa Turner
The De-extinction movement has been attracting a lot of attention lately. People take stances on both sides of the argument. The real overarching question though, is, “is this a good idea”. The extinct species did go extinct for one reason or another. How can we combat these issues to prevent re-extinction? Is it feasible to spend the money needed to bring these species back? Can we support them or can they survive on their own? Will we be endangering anything else by doing so? These are all logistical questions that help define whether it really would be beneficial to bring back extinct species.
The argument against the de-extinction movement is strong. Let’s say you choose a Pyrenean ibex. Where can you put this new herd so that it isn’t out-competing the native species and so that it isn’t being out competed? Who’s to say the predator of Pyrenean Ibex, wolves and lynxes, have not evolved efficiently and will quickly wipe out the newly reintroduced species? Also, one of the main reasons many animals went extinct was from hunting. So now it needs to be figured out how we can stop hunters from doing it again. To protect the animals, we would probably have to release them on protected land, at least until they are stable, and continue to monitor the population for hunting. Are their native habitats still around and can we protect them, especially from development that is required due to increasing human populations? And even if we could, will it be in the same state as is needed? Animals have delicate systems, so they need a very distinct set of circumstances. For one, they need a certain amount of nutrition: proteins, carbohydrates, calories, in order to sustain life. Also, the cells within their body require a certain environment. Over the course of the last several decades, we know pollution has grown exponentially. This often changes the pH and temperature of many things. If this change affects the food of these extinct species, or acidifies water, without having evolved to cope, it will denature things like enzymes, so its natural bodily process will not run efficiently, if at all. This could be a problem with supporting the new species. Lastly, as far as support, logistically you would need to revive enough of the species to avoid bottlenecking and inbreeding which could cause several health problems.
Another aspect of the argument against species recovery is from the humanity side. For one, there is a financial responsibility. Think about the money that must go into not only the research, but the technology, policies, and further support of the animal once brought back. Can we really afford to spend such amounts when we are already sitting in such debt? Also, if we could bring back species, then people will begin to wonder why put so much into conservation. Perhaps, some extremists could argue, it is better to preserve DNA and bring them back when we can more effectively care for and preserve the living animals. If we can use the lab, why bother conserving species? We can bring them back whenever we choose. If we focus our resources in bringing back these species, we are leaving other research with less, such as preservation and disease research, that could help make the environment more beneficial for these species and the ones still living.
On the flip side of the coin, there are several pros to bringing back species. One is just the sheer novelty of the situation. Reviving extinct species could boost tourism and economy. The fascination with seeing an animal we thought long gone is a major entertainment factor. Children will want to go to zoos and see these species, and many zoos contribute to conservation funding. If a zoo or aquarium were to have an animal, like the Woolly Mammoth or Steller’s Sea Cow, people would flock to see this new species, bringing funding. By boosting tourism and economy, you are opening up the resources for further conservation efforts. Also, we are now introducing further biodiversity and genetic diversity. By bringing back species, we are altering the food web but perhaps in a good way. We are also introducing new genetics in an area. While species don’t inter-mate, by bringing in a new species, we are also bringing in their chemicals, such as nutrients for the ground where other food receives its nutrients from urine and feces. We are trying to undo the bottlenecking of species and harm that humans have highly caused. By doing this, we are also restoring diminished ecosystems, trying to get it back its former glory. Also, new technology will surface. We now need to have the technology to splice genomes back together and pull out nuclei, so we are not only creating new technology, but evolving what we have and know.
By bringing around this fascination, there is also raised awareness for conservation. The whole idea of thinking it gone could inspire tourists to be more involved in conservation. There are many extinct species that we know very little about. By reviving them, perhaps we can find out something new, maybe even discover a protein or resistant enzyme that will help with a disease, either within animals or within people. Maybe these extinct animals hold the key to some cure for cancer. This holds true for conserving endangered species. Lastly, perhaps we can revive certain biomes. Within an environment, there is a web of interconnectedness. When one animal is no longer a part of this web, there are many other things that rely on it that may decline or even disappear. By reintroducing this missing link, perhaps we can help other endangered species, animal or plant, to come back.
I am all for bringing back species, with limits. This needs to be a carefully thought out process and if it is determined that a certain species may do more harm than good, then it shouldn’t be brought back. For instance, I think a Steller’s Sea Cow would be excellent to bring back. They are an herbivorous marine mammal, so as long as the plant life can withstand another eater, then it isn’t too harmful. However, an animal like the Tasmanian Tiger may become too aggressive and invasive, killing off kangaroos, small rodents and birds, and perhaps driving some species to endangerment. The same argument could be made for the Saber-Toothed Cat. For this to be effective, it should be seriously considered not only whether we can sustain this animal, but whether those around it can survive with it. We also have to worry about what diseases will affect it. It will be hard, but nothing good comes without hard work. If there are people who are willing to put in the effort, why not have some wonder and fascination put back into people’s lives? Why not give an animal another chance, especially since its one we might have destroyed.
Further reading:
Article 1: The Restoration of Species and Natural Environments
Article 2: Ten Extinct Beasts that Could Walk the Earth Again
Article 3: 'De-extinction' About as Sensible as 'de-death'
Article 4: Stanford's Hand Greely Presents The Ethics of Resurrecting Extinct Species
Article 5: Expiration Fate: Can "De-Extinction" Bring Back Lost Species?
Article 6: Species Revival: Should We Bring Back Extinct Animals?
Article 7: Reviving Extinct Animals Could Lead to 'Invasive Species From the Past'
The first two are definitely peer reviewed scholarly articles, the others were found in various reputable sources and show different sides of the debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-Extinction: The New Trend in Biological Debate
Contributed by Caitlin Green
Do you remember seeing pictures of the cave paintings made by Neanderthals, illustrating a giant, hairy elephants with enormous tusks? The Woolley mammoth, a creature has been extinct for thousands of years ago, is now being considered by biologists as a subject to bring back from the dead. Just think about it, a world where if an animal species went extinct, they could easily be brought back. That almost sounds too good to be true. Today, we have the ability to gather DNA from preserved specimens that are on display in museums world-wide, replicate and enhance it, fill in the gaps with related species, and place an embryo into a surrogate species. Biologists have already made progress with this as seen with the gastric brooding frog, which you can read about through ABC News Australia. However, there are some who disagree whether this project is a good idea or not. With the ability to bring back extinct animals, it comes with both beneficial and harmful results, for both the returning species and the animals that already live, as well as humans.
The benefits for the restoration of extinct species, like mammoths for example, mainly benefit humans in the big picture. If we brought back mammoths, it would be a great achievement for humanity to hold the honor of bringing back a species that has been absent from the Earth for such a long period of time. The glory would be infinite! This science would then be used to bring back other species whose DNA we have access to, like the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger).
On the other hand of this revelation, bringing back creatures that died from a few decades ago, to millions of years ago, can turn out to be a bad thing. Why did these species go extinct to begin with? It is most likely due to human presence. With the example of the thylacine, they were driven to extinction because they killed farmer’s livestock, so the farmers killed them to protect their farm and their business. If we reintroduced thylacines back into the wild, and with the increasing human population, that problem is most likely to arise again. In addition, the world now is very different than it was when these creatures roamed the world. Their natural habitats nowadays could be polluted, a lower pH, or complete habitat loss. All of this is caused by humans. We have tainted this planet to the point that there are diseases forming in our waterways and marshes, thus killing precious species (like how the chytrid fungus is killing off multiple species of frogs world-wide). If we cannot even maintain the vulnerable species that are already living, then how can we expect to maintain the animals that we bring back from extinction?
Furthermore, if we brought back those that were extinct, how would that affect the species trying to survive in the world currently? For instance, if we brought back the thylacine in large numbers, which is an apex predator, they would be competitors with wild Tasmanian Devils, foxes, and other predators native to Tasmania and Australia. Those predators would die off, and the amount of prey would decrease, either due to over hunting by the thylacine, or migration of the prey trying to escape the thylacine’s territory. The thylacine would get desperate and could even resort to going after farmer’s livestock, which is the driving force that led to their extinction to begin with. Additionally, there would be a risk of new diseases introduced by the returning species, which could also kill off competing species, or prey. Overall, the reintroduction of these species could potentially disturb ecosystems that are currently healthy and thriving.
To read the contradicting article from National Geographic, click here.
Overall, there are both positive and negative effects that would occur if we were to bring back extinct species. This is a very controversial issue that many people do not think much about; people hear “let’s bring back the Woolley mammoth” and they think it’s the best idea in the world. Who wouldn’t want to go through a park and see massive, hairy elephants wandering around and get a picture with them? However, the risks that come with bringing back some extinct animals can, in many ways, outweigh the benefits. They could easily destroy their habitat, ruining it for themselves and those who share it, including humans. Are we, as humans and part of a giant ecosystem, ready to take on the responsibility of bringing back species that are already gone and maintaining their existence? You be the judge.
To learn more, watch some of the TEDx DeExtinction videos here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putting the Pieces Back
Contributed by Eileen Long
As the world keeps turning, it keeps changing. Over the last decade we have been bombarded with news headlines saying things about global warming, deforestation, endangered animals, and new extinctions. But what if we could change that last one? What if, we could bring them back?
Before we should even consider bringing back anything (even if they did just disappear like the Formosan Clouded Leopard, which was confirmed to be extinct earlier last week, we must first look to what is around now and in trouble. The ICUN Red List currently lists 4090 species as being critically endangered with 63 more as extinct in the wild. Some of these species are probably naturally going extinct as things have since the world began but many more are in danger due to the actions of people.
Habitat loss is a huge part of why species are disappearing all over the world as well as a major concern with reintroducing an extinct species. In the US alone, 22 states have lost more than 50% of their original wetlands, 11 states more than 70%, and ~9% of the Great Plains is gone. This doesn't even consider how much forested land has been lost to agriculture and urban growth. The picture below really illustrates how much forest has disappeared from around the 1900s to 2005.
But what does this really have to do with extinct species? Well, I am a firm believer of before trying to fix the problem, fix the cause. As the human population gets larger, we need more space. More space to live, more space for food, more space for our waste, more space for everything. It was really only in the last century that people started to look around and ask where all the animals were going. Below are some examples of animals that have disappeared because of humans.
Thylacine
Also known as the Tasmanian Tiger, Thylacines both lost most of their native range and were hunted to extinction when they were thought to be a threat to farm animals and the last one died in captivity in 1936.
Quagga
A subspecies of the Plains Zebra, the Quagga only had stripes on its head, neck, and chest and had a brown back. The last Quagga died in captivity in 1883 after being hunted to extinction by farmers for food and also because they were seen as competition for livestock.
Passenger Pigeon
Martha, the last Passenger Pigeon died in captivity in 1914. The Passenger Pigeon numbered in the billions back in the early 1800s but after being hunted as cheap food and losing much of their forests, rapidly declined in the 1890s.
Baiji River Dolphin
Also known as the Yangtze River Dolphin, the Baiji River Dolphin started its rapid decline when China began its road to industrialization. By 1970, only a few hundred were left. In 1997 there were only 13 when a full search was done. In 2006 they were declared extinct after a search of most of the river was done and not a single one was found.
If you want to learn more about endangered and recently extinct species the ICUN has for the last 4 decades been keeping and updating a list of species and their conservation statuses.
Here is a quick list of some other sites related to De-extinction:
A quick talk with Stewart Brand, working on the Revive and Restore project, from Talk of the Nation on NPR... And here is the project Stewart was talking about
An article by Carl Zimmer on whether or not it's a good idea to bring extinct species back
TEDxDeExtinction event
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saga of the Bucardo Goat
Contributed by McKinzie Fink
Many do not understand that when it comes to the topic of de-extinction it, the question it not “when” but “what” and “how”. Extinct species have already been revived, such as the Bucardo goat, achieved by cloning the DNA from the last of its kind and having an extant goat species carry the Bucardo zygote to term. The problem is that the newborn lived for only 10 minutes before succumbing to a malformed lung. Currently there is extensive research being done to revive the Passenger Pigeon, and when it succeeds more people will realize de-extinction is already happening and all that is left to ask is what to revive next and how that will be done.
I am personally very excited about the de-extinction movement. These feelings are greatly rooted to my childhood aspirations to become a paleontologist and study dinosaur bones and the excitement I felt when introduced to the idea of reviving the dinosaurs as I saw in Jurassic Park. Of course, I know better than to anticipate bringing back the dinosaurs, nor would I want that to happen. Jurassic Park was definitely right on one count, these animals would not be able to live just any where, their habitat is completely gone, they would have to be kept in captivity which is a life I would not wish on any wild animal. These thoughts also apply to the de-extinction of any recently lost species of animals. I support this movement, but not the restoration of an animal that will never be able to return to the wild. Species like the Passenger Pigeon or Bucardo goat would still be able to survive outside of captivity, but something like the Woolley Mammoth may not be able to adapt to the past thousands of years of change the world has undergone since their extinction.
I do not think the de-extinction movement will obstruct the preservation of currently endangered species. I trust the scientists to pursue de-extinction with conservation and wildlife management principles in mind. I am a little concerned about how the public receives the news, with so many biased or ill-informed people in the world this incredible advance for so many branches of science may be misjudged and turned into a bad thing.
I personally hope to one day be involved in this study. It intrigues me because I enjoy the fields of both biotechnology and wildlife science, and de-extinction undoubtedly combines both.
Additional Resources:
Ted Talks episode about De-Extinction: http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_the_dawn_of_de_extinction_are_you_ready.html
National Geographic Article about De-Extinction: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/125-species-revival/zimmer-text
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-extinction: Resurrecting the Dead
Contributed by Ashley Sharpe
One of the most heavily weighted words for wildlife biologists is Extinction. Conservation is a billion dollar industry protecting our world’s threatened species. Without conservation these species could go extinct and be removed from our ecosystems forever…
Wait, forever? I guess forever isn’t as long as we once thought it was.
Now there are scientists whose sole focus is “resurrecting the dead”: bringing back species that one left our earth, even thousands of years ago. To find out how this is done “click here” for a video. Bringing back extinct animals is now a worldwide discussion, and has brought forth many different opinions.
Once we bring back these extinct species, this would call for greater conservation, and an increase in interest and protection for wildlife, which many scientists feel would assist in improving the ecosystems we have today. For those animals that are not put directly back into the wild, they could be put in a zoo, which enhances revenue as people come and witness different species that were not even around in their parents, or grandparent’s lifetimes. This is all seen as a tool for prosperity not just for the scientists involved, but our communities.
This first issue that arises is do these habitats the once extinct animals need even exist? Many animals have disappeared solely due to loss of habitat. We as humans have changed biodiversity all over the world, and some of the plants animals once grazed upon are extinct themselves. What do we do then once we bring back an animal that has no habitat to sustain it? It will again die as it once did which is counterproductive for de-extinction advocates.
Even if the habitat still exists, who’s to say reintroducing these animals won’t have a negative effect on existing tropic levels? Reintroduction could cause competition the existing species cannot overcome, or it could cause over-predation that could result in a top-down shift in the food chain. Our species today have become accustomed to the ecosystem and other animals around them, disrupting that could have far more drastic effects.
For Further reading:
Steward Brand’s TED talk on de-extinction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKc9MJDeqj0
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/19/reinventing-the-mammoth/
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/april/greely-species-deextinction-040413.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back From The Dead: The De-extinction Movement
Contributed by Éléonore Conis
A lot of kids today are familiar with extinct species through movies like Ice Age, where wooly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers form friendships. However, if we were to bring back these extinct species from the dead, there is no telling how they would behave. The question “should we bring them back?” sparks controversy all over the world and the answer is not as simple.
 |
| Mammoths and Saber-toothed Tigers, oh my! |
There are many costs associated with bringing back an extinct species, and many more uncertainties. Exorbitant amounts of money are spent collecting and sequencing DNA in order to make clones, of which many often die within hours of birth. But that’s just a monetary cost for humans. There are also costs on the biome scale; where would these species live? Would they need to migrate? How would they deal with today’s environment? Would they expedite the extinction of already endangered species? A lot of people feel guilty about species like the Passenger Pigeon which went extinct in 1914 due mainly to overharvest (for more info on the Passenger Pigeon, read here), but should that be motivation for engaging in costly endeavors to bring it back? Then the question becomes a matter of how many species would we bring back and what purpose would they serve once established?
 |
| Martha, the last Passenger Pigeon |
Originally I was pro-de-extinction; the crusade to bring back species I’ve never seen is certainly attractive, but I admit that I have become undecided on the topic. I fear not only for the future of endangered species that we are already trying to conserve, but also for how it could become a political and/or ethical war zone. Some say even the Endangered Species Act is in danger (to read more, go here)! A lot of people argue that it’s our job to make things right with those species that went extinct at the machinations of humans, and maybe it is. I’d definitely love to see a passenger pigeon alive and well, flying around in my yard, and there is a possibility that I just might within my lifetime. Although I’m not 100% solid on how I feel about bringing back extinct species, I know that scientists are already trying to do so regardless. So my stance on the subject would have to be that we’ll just have to wait and see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-extinction: Should We?
Contributed by MaryCatherine Douglas
We all remember Jurassic Park, the ultimate scientific fantasy of being able to clone extinct animals. In the early 1990’s fantasy was an accurate description for bringing species back from extinction. Now, what was once considered science fiction is now science fact. The picture above is the gastric-brooding frog. A unique species of frog that swallows its eggs, develops them in the stomach, and gives birth through its mouth—that became extinct in 1983. This frog is of so much importance because it has shown us that although it is extinct, it can one day live again. A team of scientists have been able to take dead nuclei, frozen for 40 years, implant them into the Great Barred Frog (a distant relative), and revive the cells long enough to obtain the entire genome of the gastric-brooding frog. It is literally bringing life back from the dead and it has been suggested that it could work in other extinct species. However, as amazing as this discovery is, we need to stop and really think. Should we bring back extinct species? Why did these species go extinct in the first place? What should our limits be if we decide that de-extinction is okay? What are the pros and cons of de-extinction? National Geographic begins to present some good points in this video.
First, to address the pros for de-extinction we have to determine why it’s important and worth investing billions of dollars in. There are many reasons supporting the de-extinction movement: preserving biodiversity, restoring diminished ecosystems; to prevent new extinctions, and to undo the harm humans have had on wildlife. Species that are on the extinction list could be saved and taken off the list due to this advancement. New science will emerge that tells us of the genomes of extinct species so we can learn more about their lives and lineage. All of this new information about extinct species could be applied to living species and help cure diseases and weaknesses like the transmission of facial cancer in Tasmanian Devils. Some animals, like the Wooly Mammoth, were keystone species in their ecosystems occupying key trophic levels crucial to the success of the system. When they went extinct, their ecosystem died down a little like the grasslands Wooly Mammoths once helped sustain. The preservation and resurrection of these wildlife species will enrich the lives of generations to come and help bring the world’s ecosystems back into the balance they once had. But, is the world ready to handle the responsibility of reintroducing these species?
Now for the cons that naturally come along with de-extinction. Firstly, when considering if a species should be revived we must also consider the habitat it once lived in. Does an area like this still exist today? Do the plants or animals it feed on still exist? And if so, what kind of impact will re-introducing this species to the newly native species have on the ecosystem? If we take these species back to their native habitats after restoring their populations what’s to say that whatever drove them to extinction the first time won’t do it again? Take the Pyrenean ibex for example. This goat was hunted to extinction. So, if scientists were to bring it back from the dead what will stop the hunters from killing them again? And even so there is no guarantee that a suitable habitat is still present. Secondly, we must consider the human response to discoveries and technology. The human population will stop caring for the species that are endangered and even those that are not because now we have the power to simply bring back whatever we destroy. Any moral code held up regarding the environment will be thrown away because all can be undone and forgiven through these scientific advancements. The irresponsibility that some humans hold toward the environment will only increase if we allow the forgiveness that de-extinction offers.
Like many things de-extinction has good and bad sides to it. The good being that species lost to the world due to human carelessness can be restored and protected so that they might not go extinct again. Public knowledge about wildlife and its fragility would increase, and more knowledge about the Earth we live on and its inhabitants is never a bad thing. However, with knowledge comes great responsibility. Carefully thought out resurrection plans would have to be thought out so billions of dollars are not spent reviving these species for them to fail. These plans cannot be used as a scapegoat for mankind’s lack of responsibility to take care of the creatures we share the Earth with. If it produces the attitude that preserving wildlife doesn’t matter because we can just bring it back de-extinction must not be allowed. When used to redeem human mistakes, like the hunting the Carolina Parakeet to extinction, de-extinction can be a wonderful tool to restore the world’s ecosystems but not as a quick fix to sheer carelessness.
For Further Reading: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130315151044.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Park_(film)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130311-deextinction-reviving-extinct-species-opinion-animals-science/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130312--deextinction-conservation-animals-science-extinction-biodiversity-habitat-environment/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixing the Broken Path
Contributed by Lillian SchermerhornJurassic Park is not just science fiction anymore; extinct animals can and will be brought back to life. It is only a matter of what animals and how many are made. It almost sounds like a manufacturing company of a product, but what really is the difference in the two? Humans have gotten on a destructive path that disturbed the natural state of earth. Along this path not only land has been destroyed but the wildlife that inhibits those grounds as well. Many species have become extinct due to human influence like the Carolina parakeet or the stellar’s sea cow. If we have the capabilities to bring these animals back that we demolished, should we? Should we attempt to reconstruct the path behind us? These are questions that must now be answered because it’s not a matter of if we can, it’s if we should. These questions come down strictly to each individual’s perspective on how far humans should go. Through taking a few steps back and dealing with the true issue at hand, I believe in the future we should bring species back that will be beneficial to human kind.
Fixing the underlying failure to each of these species must me dealt with before even considering bringing any species “back to life,” because they will just become extinct again with time if humans do not change their ways. Yes, this is an amazing feat, we have cheated death in a way; but change in our lives is needed before consideration of reintroducing extinct animals. Pollution, overexploitation and different approaches to management need to be address immediately to keep animals from becoming extinct on or hands in the first place. Once devoted efforts to protect the wildlife still living are concurred, then the idea of reintroduction can be faced. Until then, we have bigger issues to handle. These issues can keep the living from dying, not bringing the dead back. Just because we can, does not mean we should especially with no change in the destructive path we as humans have made.For further reading:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/
http://singularityhub.com/2013/04/11/jurassic-park-but-for-real-this-time-de-extinction-on-the-move/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pleistocene Era: The Sequel
Contributed by Emily Ronis
Extinction. It’s a phenomenon that is final, irreversible, and forever.
Or is it?
Modern science may soon be able to resurrect animals we’ve considered gone for eternity. This “de-extinction” movement is growing, maturing, and gaining momentum. The process for de-extinction is relatively simple: create an egg and sperm using the extinct animal’s DNA. Then, impregnate their closest living relative as a surrogate. If all goes according to plan, the surrogate will give birth to what was an extinct animal. Sounds like science fiction? Absolutely, but as research continues in this field, it may soon become reality.
_-_Mauricio_Ant%C3%B3n%5B1%5D.jpg) |
| Woolly mammoths |
Many argue that de-extinction is a just another form of conservation: an effort to preserve biodiversity and life, and should be pursued. Bringing back keystone species (animals whose existence is crucial to the functionality of their ecosystem) could restore and preserve ecological richness and the services those animals provided. Woolly mammoths in Siberia, for example, are thought to have helped maintain the productive grassland ecosystem by breaking up the soil and fertilizing the grass with their manure. Since their extinction, the grasslands have been transformed by moss into less productive tundra. The return of the mammoth could mean the return of those carbon-capturing grasses and a more prolific ecosystem.
Bringing back extinct animals could also bring stronger protection for their habitats, thus protecting other species of plants and animals by default. For instance, reviving the extinct Tasmanian tiger might warrant protection for Tasmanian woodlands against increased logging and human encroachment. Furthermore, the de-extinction movement is drawing interest and support for conservation all around the globe. Many extinct species are acting as flagship, or icon, species and are inspiring the protection and restoration of numerous wild areas.
Finally, because human activity has caused the majority of extinctions – overhunting, habitat destruction, pollution – many believe it is our obligation to restore these lost species. Opponents say this is going too far, likening the movement to playing God. Michael Archer, a paleontologist at the University of South Whales, said, “I think we played God when we exterminated these animals.” De-extinction might not only be beneficial to environments deprived of their keystone species, but it could also mean redemption for the immeasurable degree of devastation mankind has caused.
 |
| European Auroch |
While it would be incredible to be able to see living and wild Tasmanian tigers, flocks of passenger pigeons, or herds of European aurochs, de-extinction is not without its possible flaws. If we were successful at bringing back these animals, where would we put them? Successful reintroduction requires healthy and expansive habitat, which is quickly disappearing. Human encroachment, pollution, and loss of biodiversity have exponentially shrunk and degraded habitat. An extinct animal’s habitat may simply not exist anymore. The Chinese river dolphin, for instance, went extinct due to pollution in the Yangtze River. Conditions today are equally bad, if not worse. Without viable habitat, reintroduction of de-extinct animals is futile.
Furthermore, focusing on restoring a single species is a narrow approach to conservation and does not consider the larger ecosystem. The reintroduction of one species could be detrimental to another, or cause damaging trophic interactions if the greater ecosystem is not taken into account. Reintroduced animals could act as an invasive species, possibly outcompeting others for food or serving as a reservoir for disease. Failing to examine the ecosystem as a whole when discussing conservation or a reintroduction could lead to unintended, if not disastrous, results. Also, because de-extinct species have been absent from their ecosystems for some time, there may not be niche for them any longer. Ecosystems have to adapt to change constantly, often restructuring themselves completely. There’s no telling if a de-extinct species will perish, thrive, or disrupt the current ecosystem into which it’s reintroduced.
A further issue with de-extinction is that, because we can choose which species to resurrect, we have a tendency to favor charismatic animals: those that are intriguing, cute, or iconic, and not necessarily imperative to an ecosystem’s survival. The time, money, and resources used to bring those species back would be put to better use if concentrated on animal populations that are declining now, and whose ecosystems might collapse in their absence. The sea otter, for example, is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and is a keystone species for the Pacific Northwest. Sea otters feed on sea urchins, which ensure the urchins don’t overfeed on kelp, thus preserving healthy kelp forest ecosystems.
A further issue with de-extinction is that, because we can choose which species to resurrect, we have a tendency to favor charismatic animals: those that are intriguing, cute, or iconic, and not necessarily imperative to an ecosystem’s survival. The time, money, and resources used to bring those species back would be put to better use if concentrated on animal populations that are declining now, and whose ecosystems might collapse in their absence. The sea otter, for example, is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and is a keystone species for the Pacific Northwest. Sea otters feed on sea urchins, which ensure the urchins don’t overfeed on kelp, thus preserving healthy kelp forest ecosystems.
 |
| A sea otter enjoying a sea urchin snack |
All that being said, while de-extinction is absolutely a valid topic for further research and development, I do not believe that it should ever be considered a viable conservation strategy. It does not address the plethora of problems facing our ecosystems, animals, and planet: pollution, human population pressures, invasive species, and so many others.
Conservation isn’t just about making sure there are animals in the environment. It’s about finding ways for humans and animals to live and thrive alongside each other in a healthy environment. As amazing as it would be to see extinct animals in the flesh, de-extinction is a mechanism that would really only serve to appease our human curiosity, as well as our sense of justice - a righting of the wrongs we have caused in nature. It is not a strategy that is going to fix the larger issues behind extinction, which may persist and cause other species to disappear. De-extinction is a retroactive and short-term solution, not the proactive, long-term one that we desperately need. Incredible in concept, de-extinction in reality would serve no true conservation purpose, and would be bringing animals back into a world where there is simply no place for them anymore.
For more information on de-extinction, check out these sources:
National Geographic’s forum about de-extinction.
Steward Brand’s TED talk on de-extinction.
Article from Science Daily about de-extinction ethics.
Barua, Maan. "Mobilizing Metaphors: The Popular Use Of Keystone, Flagship And Umbrella Species Concepts." Biodiversity & Conservation 20.7 (2011): 1427-1440.
Kvitek, Rikk G., Pat J. Iampietro, and Edward Bowlby. "Sea Otters And Benthic Prey Communities: A Direct Test Of The Sea Otter As Keystone Predator In Washington State." Marine Mammal Science 14.4 (1998): 895-902.
Elizabeth A. Ferrer, et al. "Has The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?." Nature 471.7336 (2011): 51-57.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-extinction: Should we fix what we destroyed?
Contributed by Madeline Leonard
“You cannot get through a single day without having an impact on the world around you. What you do makes a difference and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make,” Jane Goodall.
Since the success of the gastric-brooding frog, the topic of de-extinction has been a very popular debate. The public and many scientists believe this to be a good idea that will bring forth a new way of conservation. In a recent poll, about 70% of people believe we should bring back extinct species. At first, I am shocked, indeed, many extinct species like the thylacine, passenger pigeon, and the javan tiger were eradicated by humans but is it our responsibility to bring them back? How would it affect other species? What about all the endangered species that need our attention now? I do not believe that de-extinction is the solution. We must focus on the endangered species we have now and protect the environments they live in.One reason I believe this to be unbeneficial is that these extinct species’ habitats have been altered either by climate change or human development. For example, the passenger pigeon’s once habitat is now largely inhabited by humans. Today these areas have large urban centers, extremely different agriculture land, and very different ecosystems. Additionally, the nearly extinct American chestnut was the pigeon’s main food source and without it they would unlikely survive.
Besides, what if these species become invasive or pests? The passenger pigeon, or any of these extinct species, could become another European starling. Many species already face the threats of invasive species, why add additional stress and competition? The introduction of another potential harmful species could cause current species to become extinct. Even something that looks harmless, like the western mosquito fish is a threat to native species. Introduced to control the mosquito population, the highly predatory fish preys on rare native fish and invertebrate species. These fish are difficult to eliminate and the only way to stop them is elimination.
Finally, if scientists bring back extinct species what does that mean for current endangered species? Conservation would become irrelevant to the public because scientist could simply bring the species back. As a future conservationist, this concerns me. There are so many species in critical need of our help. Jamie Shreeve from National Geographic states this perfectly, “There are plenty of living species that are critically endangered. Why waste resources trying to resurrect the dead when we can use them to save the sick?” And he is absolutely right. According to the “IUCN Red List” there are 16,928 species listed as threatened with extinction. Why spend our time reviving extinct species when there is a shocking amount of species that need our support to survive.
While it is disappointing that humans have caused so many wonderful species to become extinct, we should not bring these creatures back to life. We must instead focus on the endangered species that are in need of a miracle. John Muir once said, “God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fools.”
Further Readings:
What If Extinction Is Not Forever? Jacob S. Sherkow and Henry T. Greely, Science 5 April 2013: 340 (6128), 32-33. [DOI:10.1126/science.1236965] http://www.sciencemag.org.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/content/340/6128/32.full
Endangered Species International; http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/overview2.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurassic Earth
Contributed by Cody Hash
Imagine being able to travel to countries where all kinds of extinct plants and animals roamed lived and roamed freely. This could be a reality in the near future, and it is called de-extinction. This is a process of restoring extinct animals to their native habitats.
There are many factors that must be taken into account before attempting this. First off, is it a good idea? Depending on which way that one would look at it, it could be. Many people would pay a large sum of money to see extinct animals such as the Woolly Mammoth or passenger pigeon. It would be a huge profit market for the local region where the animals are. Another benefit could be introducing an extinct predator into an area that has a current problem with too many or too much of a species. This would be beneficial to both parties because the extinct species would have a plentiful food source and the problem species would be reduced in the area.
There would be some costs to reintroducing extinct species as well. Would the animals being reintroduced be able to survive? After all they became extinct for a reason, whether that be from causes of nature, predation, competition, habitat loss, or even humans. Habitat loss would be a major factor in this debate. Many extinct species require large ranges for hunting or mating, such as the Thylacine, and in a lot of places around the world such areas do not exist. If the cause of extinction was competition that could present a problem currently if that competitor still exists. The Thylacine for example was out competed by wild dogs or Dingoes as they are known. Dingoes still are still around today and would once again outcompete Thylacines of they were reintroduced. If the species did not survive that was being reintroduced, that would be a lot of time and money that was lost.
Another cost that could be associated with reintroduction is the success of the species being reintroduced. What happens if the species is too successful? A species grows past the control limit of the researchers, starts successfully reproducing at a high level and populations of extant species start to decline rapidly. This would be a worst case scenario, but it is very possible. In my opinion this would be one of the real risks that goes along with de-extinction. If some kind of mechanism could be placed on the species that keeps their reproductive success at a minimum, but enough to survive that would be ideal.
De-extinction is a really neat and seemingly good idea when it is first thought about, but it is actually not such a good idea. There is too much risk that goes along with it to give disaster the chance to strike. Scientists can do as many tests and computer animated simulations as they want, but the truth is that no one really knows how they will act and what their true impact on Earth will be until they are actually on it. Although many people, including myself, throughout the world would love to see extinct species walk about the Earth, the risk far outweighs the benefits.
For further reading:
http://www.livescience.com/27939-reviving-extinct-animals-mammoths.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-de-extinction-movement-all-about
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A whole new kind of zoo
Contributed by Samantha Cubbage
Could you imagine going to a zoo, and instead of seeing elephants and lions you were able to see a woolly mammoth? Instead of taking a bucket of feed to a giraffe, you could get up close and personal with one of the world’s largest extinct mammals.How would this work? Would we be able to bring back any species we wanted?
Wouldn’t that just be a great solution for our recent world crisis’, such as global warming, over-harvesting of animals, and deforestation. We wouldn’t have to take responsibility for anything.
For example, if a species was threatened or endangered we wouldn’t have to be very concerned for its wellbeing, because if it did go extinct we could just bring it right back using genetics in de extinction.
Wouldn’t that solve a lot of problems? We wouldn’t have to worry about the consequences of our actions. In reality, this would create more problems. Without public concern for these animals, the health of our environment would only get worse faster. We wouldn’t be worried about deforestation or pollution. This would give us the excuse to act in whatever way the company with the most money would see fit.
So, it wouldn’t be a great idea in terms of the environment due to possible lack of concern. How would it end up affecting the animal populations that we do have now?
An animal that went extinct decades ago, may not be suited to rejoin the population of animals on earth now.
For example, Thylacine is a Tasmanian devil type species that went extinct in the 1980’s.
How would the reintroduction of this species affect other animals that are in its old habitat? How would this affect disease, competition, and stress?
Obviously the reintroduction of an extinct species would cause stress on the species that must compete with the new species for resources. The reintroduction could even cause chronic stress, which could lead to behavioral modifications, reproductive inhibition, and disease.
We have little to no knowledge on how these species would react to diseases that are now predominant. We would have no way of controlling this spread of disease between the newly reintroduced species and past species in the wild. For all we know, certain extinct species may be able to spread these diseases or pathogens to humans.
This reintroduction could cause the extinction of other species.
Are we willing to make this choice of which species should remain and which should be gone forever?
Since when did man get the right to play God?
We don’t realize that by doing this, we could manipulate the animals around us. When does it stop? How would we decide which animals should be kept around?
I would say that through this, natural selection would be obsolete. If the environment or out competition caused a species to go extinct, who are we to that it should still remain on this earth?
This would cause unknown consequences in the trophic cascade. Which predators would remain, and which prey would remain?
Many would say that this is a wonderful idea. By bringing back these species, there would be an economic influx. If people drive thousands of miles to go to state and national zoos to see pandas, how far do you think people would travel to see extinct reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and birds?
Just because we have the power and knowledge to do something, it doesn’t mean that it’s right. Before we jump to the decision to take nature into our own hands, we must think of all of the consequences and our own futures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Extinction Real?
Contributed by Cody Wendelin
De-extinction brings much debate about whether it is correct or incorrect, whether that be morally, socially, environmentally, or economically. Steward Brand shows a good introduction to this topic.
Benefits:
Moral – The revival of a species that humans have destroyed could potentially redeem some of that “sin” of destroying them (Brand, 2013). This idea by some that we may be able to fix some of our wrong-doings is popular within some of the population (National Geographic Society, 2013).
Social – People travel long distances to see charismatic animals in zoos and wildlife preserves. If Wholly Mammoths were available to see, few circumstances would stop people from traveling to observe them. Another benefit is the mutual relationships that will emerge from working on this de-extinction project. Numerous conferences and symposiums will be held all over the world, including scientists from different fields and areas of study. The dialogue between all of them will introduce many new ideas and rapport amongst them (Brand, 2012).
Environmental – Biodiversity plays a major role in the health of communities. An increase in biodiversity usually leads to an increase in ecosystem health. Bringing back extinct species will help to increase this biodiversity (Brand, 2013). Keystone species are proportionately more important than other species of the same density. If a keystone species was brought back, this could have exponentially significant effects on the ecosystem (reintroduction of grasslands by reintroducing a keystone carnivore). A video on this topic can be viewed here.
Economic – New techniques used to bring back extinct species can be used to preserve current endangered species by increasing their genetic variability (Brand, 2013). For example, the tumor on the face of Tasmanian Devil’s is supposedly caused by one single gene. If this gene is erased, the disease is erased. This reduces the yearly cost of preservation.
Costs:
Moral – Bringing back extinct species does not solve the problem. The problem is in how we act toward our animal counterparts. If we do not change our perspective, we will be stuck in a positive feedback loop – we will influence more species to extinction as we bring some out of extinction. Many animals already die in nature preserves. If we were to introduce once extinct animals, they have an increased potential of mortality because the ecosystem and environment has changed significantly since their last existence (Brand, 2012).
Social – De-extinction brings the promise of being able to fix our errors at some point in the future. We will not care about current conservation if we know we can just fix our mistakes in the future (Primm, 2013). One of the biggest pushes for de-extinction is the notion that we will be able to overcome death (at least on a species scale). This, however, could lead to significant problems within the social culture. The public will look at it as becoming invincible, which is not true. In addition, it could potentially create an addiction to further advances in life –altering advances (Brand, 2012).
Environmental – Ecosystems have changed since these species have been alive. The reintroduction could potentially alter current ecosystems enough to harm the present species (Primm, 2013). These animals we bring back will not necessarily act in the same manner as they did in the past (Sumner and Carey, 2013). Animal behavior is largely in response to current environmental factors. These have changed, so there is no reason to believe their behavior won’t change as well. For example, migration patterns would be misconstrued. This could mean a potential pest for humans.
Economic – Reviving an entire species is an expensive and difficult process. The benefits (potentially decreasing the cost of current preservation due to relevant technology) are heavily outweighed by the costs. Scientists are developing alternative ways to reduce preservation cost other than de-extinction methods.
My Stance:
We will continue to act in the manner that best suits us. No matter how hard we try, our sinful nature will win if we always act as if we are the ultimate power, with no one to answer to. We must realize that we are on earth not to control and manipulate other animals for our sole well-being, but that we have an obligation to take care of them and be stewards. Just because we will soon have the technology to bring back a species from extinction doesn’t mean we should. Our behavior will not change; it has the potential to worsen after the realization that we can fix any mistakes we make. We should not try to play God. Life and death is a serious matter, and we should stick to what we are here to do. We are here to fulfill man’s purpose, not God’s. This purpose includes being responsible for the resources we have. We should not move forward with this de-extinction because it will alter our perspectives on how we treat current populations.
References:
Brand, S. 2012. De-extinction projects, techniques, and ethics. National Geographic Society.
Brand, S. 2013. Opinion: the case for reviving extinctspecies. National Geographic News.
National Geographic Society, 2013. TEDxDeExtinction event, with support of TED and hosted by national geographic, features leading scientists and conservationists from around the world. Journal of Engineering 9270.
Primm, S. 2013. Opinion: the case against species revival. National Geographic News.
Sumner, T. and Carey, B. 2013. Stanford’s hank greely presents the ethics of resurrecting extinct species. Stanford Report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De-Extinction: Do Not Pass Go, Do
Not Collect $200
Contributed by Alexander R. Pelletier
Sixteen
years after a sheep was successfully cloned from a single cell, people are
considering literally bringing extinct species back to life. This is not a joke,
check it out here.
In fact, scientists have
already brought back extinct species, though they have not lived for very long.
It seems the largest hump has been hurdled in the process of what is being
called “de-extinction,” and it is only a matter of time before we can bring
back healthy individuals of extinct species. How cool is that?
 |
|
Collage
of currently extinct animals, including the Dodo (top row, third from left) and
the Thylacine (“Tasmanian Tiger,” bottom row, third from left).
|
Maybe not so cool.
Scientist
or not, most people have heard of Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” or
“natural selection.” For those of us that haven’t, think about this:
individuals that are best suited to live in their ecosystem will continue to
live in their ecosystem, while those that are not well suited to live will not
continue to live. Pretty simple. Habitats and climates change faster than some
species do, and no one can control that.
And now that the word “control” has
been introduced, you’re thinking: Humans can control whether species occur or
not, can’t we? Well, you’d be correct. However, ecosystems and food webs have
been evolving and changing for thousands of years. When a species is weeded out
of an ecosystem, it is because the evolutionary progress of time requires it in
order to move forward. In a sense of evolution, we can think of time linearly
or cyclically. Time is linear in the sense that it is constantly changing and
progressing forward, and that we can not rewind it. Simultaneously, time is
cyclic in its patterns. From an ecological standpoint, think of life and death
cycles, predator-prey cycles, and patterns of succession in forests. (Forests
start as grass fields, then have flowers and shrubs, and eventually become
covered in large trees before there is enough flammable material to increase
probability for fire. Eventually, fires occur and the field goes back to soil,
where it starts recovering again). Whether we perceive time as linear or
cyclic, de-extinction would interfere with both patterns. (Check out forest
succession here; Imagine throwing a wrench in a
cycle that takes so many years to occur!)
Consider linear time first. If an
animal persists for a stretch of time before the environments change becomes
too fast for that animal to keep up, that species simply will not keep up. Time
will not slow down for just one species because so many others depend on it to
pursue forward. In this sense, extinctions become necessary. If we introduce an
extinct species into a point in time that is further ahead than the point on
the line where the species originally fell off, certain amounts of change will
have occurred. Because time moves linearly, it tends to continue its pattern
rather than revert back to something old. This means that change will continue
to favor whatever caused the species to go extinct in the first place. So,
without human investment, the species is bound to be pushed towards extinction
again.
The cyclic nature of time does not
hold a more promising story for extinct species. It may be possible to argue
that maybe a species can survive during one portion of a cycle and not during
other portions. Well, consider this. If humans introduce a formerly extinct
species into an environment during the cycle in which the species used to
naturally persist, that species will probably survive until the cycle continues
to the stage where the animal died before. That’s the pattern of cycles: if
something happens once, it will happen again. If you can’t make it through one
cycle, you go to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. You have officially
been wiped off the cycle, and the game continues. The only way to get out of
jail is to expel time and energy, which nature’s preference opposes. Spending
time and money also opposes general human interest. Sounds like a win-win to let
nature take its course.
But wait, what if humans did spend the time and money to get the
animal back on its feet? What if humans did spend the time and money to make
sure that species persisted through the part of the cycle or the stretch of
time in which it previously became extinct? That’s easy. Humans would lose time
and money, and we would have successfully brought back an animal from the
depths of time. Is it cool yet?
 |
| Over the last 200 years, and especially the last 50, extinction rates have skyrocketed. |
Not quite. There are other plants
and animals in the ecosystem that we may introduce this not-so-extinct species
into. These animals and plants have successfully persisted in their environment
and are fit to continue living the way they have been, by “nature’s choice.” We
will never be able to fully quantify the ecological effects of a species
introduction until after it is introduced, and this may involve the deaths (or
possible extinctions) of species that were perfectly fit to live in their
environment before we intervened. This could involve extinction due to
predation or getting outcompeted for resources by the introduced species, as well as the spread of disease or
alteration of habitat caused by the reintroduction. So, even if we spend our
time and energy to reintroduce an extinct species, some species that were
already there in the first place will lose out in compensation. As if we need
more of that.
There may be one instance when
de-extinction could provide more benefits than costs. If we are able to produce
and maintain a few individuals of a formerly extinct species in an environment
with a minimal number of other species (say, in a zoo or other enclosure) at a
cost less than that of potential tourism profits, then de-extinction could
provide possible benefits. However, the costs would be high per individual
animal, and it is not likely that tourism could outweigh these loses. If
anything, de-extinction provides a handful of scientists with jobs.
Want to read more? Check out what these
individuals have to say on the issue. I promise they are more qualified than I.
A
Scientific American post: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-de-extinction-movement-all-about
Also,
check out David M. Raup’s Book, Extinction:
Bad Genes or Bad Luck?
No comments:
Post a Comment