Bringing species back from extinction is no longer science fiction

Introduction

Scientific achievements over the past few decades have led to major advancements in the field of genetics. Geneticists (scientists who specialize in the study of genes) were able to extract genetic material from fossils and remnants of extinct species and, through the manipulation of genes belonging to closely related species, have managed to clone previously extinct species (Jones 2014, Richmond et al 2016, Sandler 2014). This is being referred to as “de-extinction”. The idea of bringing back extinct species is now being widely considered as a method of environmental conservation (Sandler 2014). The idea would have the goal of increasing biodiversity (the diversity of living species) by re-introducing species to the world. Biodiversity supports the continued functioning of many vital ecosystem processes and is thus essential to life. We have been experiencing a rapid loss of biodiversity, due to high extinction rates (Lohbeck 2016). As maintaining biodiversity is so important, scientists are constantly striving to reduce extinction rates, thus de-extinction via cloning has gained popularity and appeal. However, because cloning does not solve the underlying reason for extinction and the reintroduction of extinct species may drive extant species towards extinction, we should not yet promote the cloning of extinct species to increase biodiversity.

Discussion

Cloning an extinct species does not solve the underlying reason for that species’ extinction (Sandler 2014). Extinctions and low population levels are commonly caused and/or exacerbated by human activities. Common human causes include habitat loss or fragmentation, loss of resources, overexploitation (e.g. overfishing, overharvesting, and the like), illegal trade, and climate change (Hunter 2007, Lohbeck 2016). Many, if not all, of these “extinction causers” continue to negatively impact population levels to this day. Without addressing these underlying issues there is no real solution, we are simply putting a band aid over the problem. Additionally, the de-extinction of one species does not change the status of another. If focus is taken off extant (still living) endangered species their numbers may continue to drop, thus negating the potential benefits of de-extinction. Without proper environmental adjustments there is no guarantee that cloned or extant endangered species would be able to thrive under our current environmental conditions (Cottrell et al 2014, Sandler 2014). Are we bringing back a species just for it to live with seemingly unnecessary struggle and die off again? Given that cloning extinct species would not guarantee persistence of previously extinct or extant species it should not be considered as a method of increasing biodiversity.

There is an argument to be made that our planet does not have enough resources to support the reintroduction of extinct species. With limited resources re-introduced species may take resources away from extant species, driving them further towards extinction as well (Jones 2014). The introduction of a species to an ecosystem will alter that ecosystem’s food-web and population interactions. For instance, the cloning of the woolly mammoth has recently gained much traction. If we consider this a reality, that we may be sharing the earth with such large creatures, we must consider the sheer amount of resources those animals would require (Cottrell et al 2014, Jones 2014). They would need to consume huge quantities of food, seeing as we do not have an endless supply of resources, this food would be taken away from other species. This reduction in food availability may drive other species towards extinction as there are not enough resources to support current population sizes (Cottrell et al 2014). Given that the reintroduction of extinct species may cause the extinction of extant species, thereby reducing biodiversity, cloning would not be a successful conservation method.

In addition to the fact that de-extinction does not guarantee survival or persistence of the re-introduced species, there are likely to be many cases of "failed" clones such as in the case of the cloned bucardo, a species of mountain goat that went extinct in 2000. The bucardo was born in 2003 without properly formed lungs, because of the deformation the animal lived a very brief and painful 10 minutes (Cohen 2014). If we continue down this path towards resurrecting extinct species, this will likely not be the last case of seemingly unnecessary animal suffering.

Conclusion

Considering the presented information, it should be understood why cloning should not be used as a method of increasing biodiversity. Though the cloning of extinct species would be a feat of scientific achievement, there is no guarantee that the reintroduced species would persist or cause no harm to extant species’ population levels. We should instead focus on improving environmental conditions and preserving our current biodiversity levels. Resources and advocation efforts should be allocated towards increasing habitat and resource availability, restoring damaged ecosystems, and protecting endangered species.

Literature cited:

Cohen S. 2014. The Ethics of De-Extinction. Nanoethics. [Accessed 2024 May 2]. 8:165–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569... to an external site.

Cottrell S, Jensen JL, Peck SL. 2014. Resuscitation and resurrection: The ethics of cloning cheetahs, mammoths, and Neanderthals. Life Sciences, Society and Policy. [Accessed 2024 April 29]:[17p.]. https://doi.org/10.1186/2195-7819-10-3

Hunter P. 2007. The human impact on biological diversity. How species adapt to urban challenges sheds light on evolution and provides clues about conservation. EMBO Reports. [Accessed 2024 April 29]. 8(4):316–318. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400951

Jones KE. 2014. From dinosaurs to dodos: who could and should we de-extinct? Frontiers of Biogeography. [Accessed 2024 April 27]:[6p.]. https://doi.org/10.21425/F5FBG19431

Lohbeck M, Bongers F, Martinez-Ramos M, Poorter L. 2016. The importance of biodiversity and dominance for multiple ecosystem functions in a human-modified tropical landscape. Ecology (Durham). [Accessed 2024 April 27]. 97(10):2772–2779. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1499

Richmond DJ, Sinding M-HS, Gilbert MTP. 2016. The potential and pitfalls of de-extinction. Zoologica Scripta. [Accessed 2024 April 28]. 45:22–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12212

Sandler R. 2014. Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species. Conservation Biology. [Accessed 2024 April 28]. 28(2):354–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12198