Steven Spielberg fans or not, most of us have seen or either heard of the Jurassic Park/World franchise. Its massive financial success proves that the concept of de-extinction enraptures not only scientists and conservationists, but also the general public. To the unacquainted, de-extinction refers to the process of bringing back extinct species using advanced genetic engineering techniques such as CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats).
CRISPR works by cutting a DNA sequence at a specific genetic location and deleting or inserting DNA sequences, which can change a single base pair of DNA, large pieces of chromosomes, or regulation of gene expression levels. In layman terms, it means that we can manually edit the ‘programming code’ of living organisms (DNA sequences), recombine them to varying degrees, control the proteins they code for and therefore the biophysical characteristics of the organism.
While this may seem to belong to the realm of science fiction, we have all heard of Dolly, the first mammal to be successfully cloned from non-reproductive cells. That was almost 30 years ago and since then there have been rampant strides in the field of genetics, which means that CRISPR mediated de-extinction is very much real and applicable.
While proponents argue that de-extinction offers a second chance to restore lost biodiversity and learn from past mistakes, critics raise valid concerns about the ethical, ecological, and practical implications of resurrecting extinct species. This article delves into the merits and demerits of de-extinction, shedding light on the potential benefits and drawbacks of this controversial scientific pursuit.
Ecological and conservation implications of de-extinction
One of the primary merits of de-extinction is the potential to restore lost species and enhance biodiversity. By bringing back extinct species, we can fill ecological niches, restore disrupted ecosystems, and contribute to the overall balance of nature. This process could help preserve valuable genetic diversity, allowing us to learn more about the intricate web of life and possibly even identify traits that could benefit other species. An example of this is the attempt to bring back and re-introduce the Wooly Mammoth in Siberia by the company Colossal Biosciences.
They plan to use an the DNA of an Indian elephant to restore the broken fragments of mammoth DNA extracted from frozen fossils to create a mammoth clone. The company claims their reintroduction in the Siberian permafrost will have strong ecological implications. The permafrost all across the Arctic Circle is melting at an alarming rate which means that the millions of tonnes of carbon sequestered underneath is now being released gradually into the atmosphere resulting in severe climate consequences.
They argue that increasing arboreal vegetation in the tundra absorbs more heat and allows shrubby vegetation to proliferate which in turn reduces the duration and areal extent of permanent snow/ice cover. With the introduction of the mammoth, tree species populations will be kept under check and allow herbaceous grazers like reindeer to keep the tundra ecosystem intact by promoting grass specie#. Such processes will also have cascading impacts on further reducing heat accumulation though a feedback loop of increasing snow cover leading to increasing albedo thereby keeping temperatures low and reducing the amount of carbon released through loss of permafrost.
What about the Tasmanian Tiger?
Another example is the proposed reintroduction of the Thylacine or the Tasmanian Tiger in the Oceanic countries. The native fauna/flora in these regions is among the most fragile to being outcompeted by invasive species with several changes having already occurred due the exotic species introduction such as the Cane Toad and the common Dingo. This has lead to a gross imbalance in the food web and reintroduction of a native apex carnivore could help restore balance through a top-down predation mechanism.
An in situ lab for research and education
De-extinction could provide valuable insights into the biology, behavior, and evolution of extinct species. Scientists would have the opportunity to study these animals up close, allowing us to expand our understanding of their ecological roles and the environmental factors that contributed to their extinction. Such research could help us develop effective conservation strategies for currently endangered species, as well as mitigate future extinctions.
Ethical Considerations of de-extinction
Humans have played a significant role in causing extinctions, directly or indirectly. De-extinction can be seen as an ethical responsibility to rectify the mistakes of the past and attempt to restore the balance that was disrupted. Moreover, the resurrection of extinct species may provide an opportunity for humans to appreciate and value biodiversity, ultimately fostering a greater sense of responsibility towards the environment.
Ecotourism and Public Engagement
De-extinction could generate public interest and promote conservation efforts. Imagine the potential for ecotourism associated with the reintroduction of charismatic extinct species like the woolly mammoth or the passenger pigeon. The revenue generated from such tourism could be used to fund conservation projects and protect endangered habitats. Additionally, the public’s fascination with de-extinct species may help raise awareness about the importance of biodiversity conservation.
At the same time, many experts have serious doubts about its efficacy
As indicated above. de-extinction is an exciting exploratory field of genetic science with several potentially revolutionary implications for the field of conservation biology, however, there is a significant ‘but’ at the end of this prose (forgive the tautology), During one of the most poignant scenes in the first installation of Jurassic Park, paleontologists and mathematician Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) raise several concerns regarding the hubris of attempting to tailor ecosystems, being proven right in the enthralling third act of the film. Skeptics of de-extinction voice similar criticisms, the first of which is around the complex ethical questions it raises.
Critics argue that the resources allocated to de-extinction could be better spent on conserving existing endangered species and protecting their habitats. Some also express concerns about playing the role of “creator” and the potential for unintended consequences. Additionally, the selective de-extinction of certain species may give rise to debates regarding which species deserve to be revived and the criteria for such decisions.
Ecology is a dialectical scientific field and there is a case for ecosystem disruption
Reintroducing extinct species into current ecosystems can have unforeseen consequences. Ecological systems have evolved over time, and the sudden introduction of a long-lost species can disrupt existing ecological relationships and destabilize ecosystems. The impacts on native species, competition for resources, and the potential for introducing new diseases or parasites need careful consideration.
Consider for a moment a previously example, we have no way to truly envision the full scale of impacts that woolly mammoths will have on the Siberian tundra. How will they affect prey-predator relationships of other critically endangered megafauna in the region such as Siberian tiger and the Amur leopard? A lot has changed since their extinction 10,000 years ago and we can’t be certain that the tundra be able to sustain wild populations at the present. Will this lead to a rise in human-wildlife conflicts in the region? What about more subtle and complex ecological dynamics such as energy flow and pollination? It is nigh impossible to predict the outcome of these situations.
Is de-extinction just a ploy to flex our god-complex?
The financial and scientific resources required for de-extinction research and implementation are substantial. Conservations argue that these resources would be better invested in addressing the root causes of species decline and preventing extinctions in the first place. Protecting habitats, reducing pollution, combating climate change, and conserving existing biodiversity are pressing issues that require immediate attention. Furthermore, de-extinction may misplace conservation focus and create a false sense of security. It may divert attention from the urgent need to address the underlying causes of extinction, such as habitat destruction, climate change, and poaching. The perception that we can “bring back” extinct species may dilute the urgency of mitigating biodiversity loss reducing public awareness and commitment to conservation efforts.
While the restoration of extinct species can contribute to biodiversity conservation, offer educational opportunities, and serve as a tool for ethical rectification, it also poses ecological and practical challenges. The decision to pursue de-extinction should be approached with caution, considering the ambiguity over its long-term impact, prioritization of resources, and the moral considerations of “playing God.” Ultimately, the choice between investing in de-extinction or focusing on conserving existing biodiversity and habitats remains a complex and contentious issue that requires thoughtful deliberation and inclusive discussions.
Help us help them! Think Wildlife Foundation is a non profit organization with various conservation initiatives. Our most prominent campaign is our Caring for Pari intiative. Pari is a rehabilitated elephant at the Wildlife SoS Hospital. 25% of the profits from our store are donated to the elephant hospital for Pari. Other than buying our wonderful merchandise, you could donate directly to our Caring For Pari fundraiser.
Written by: Rishabh Srikar