The Potential Benefits and Consequences of De-Extinction

Essay, Pages 6 (1485 words)

Views

De-extinction is the process of producing an organism that is either a member of or resembles the phenotypic expression of an extinct species. Current endeavours are facilitated by the communication and collaboration between scientists across the fields of genetics, conservation and archaeology, and the application of their combined knowledge. The influence of ethical boundaries and the consideration of limitations involved are imperative for success. This proposed practice is controversial in society as a variety of potential repercussions have been identified, both with positive and negative impacts on the environment.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ The Potential Benefits and Consequences of De-Extinction ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

Possible benefits include an increase in ecosystem diversity and in turn, longevity of populations . Furthermore, with the majority of species extinction a direct result of human interaction, issues arise concerning ethicality. Contrastingly, conservationists worry the disruption to ecosystems from unnatural interactions between species and corresponding habitats .

The proposed methods of de-extinction are cloning, genetic engineering and breeding back, with different cases warranting different approaches depending on time of extinction and presence of viable specimens and close relatives .

The first successful attempt to restore an extinct species occurred through cloning in the early 2000’s when scientific efforts from France and Spain resulted in the birth of the recently extinct Pyrenean ibex . This species was hunted to extinction with the last member dying in 1999 of natural causes. Reproductive physiologists began by replacing the nuclei of goat egg cells with that of the ibex. After 57 implantations, 1 animal was born. However, the success was short lived as the young ibex died merely 10 minutes after birth . A triumph nonetheless, this attempt has peaked interest for current research and raised awareness to the possible limitations involved, ultimately, increasing chances of success in the future.

A possible application of the same technique involves the Thylacine. Palaeontologist, Michael Archer, has found that due to its recent extinction, specimens still contain viable genetic material . Through extraction and assembly of genetic fragments, the genome may be sequenced to match that of the Thylacine . Once completed, the nucleus of this cell may be combined with an egg of a Tasmanian Devil, the only living relative . The embryo formed may then be implanted into the nucleus of a Tasmanian Devil , potentially resulting in the birth of the once-extinct Thylacine.

Genetic engineering of a species genome may be attempted if viable DNA fragments exist . Once sequenced, the DNA may be spliced into the genome of a closely related species. Although this transgenic organism will not be a member of the extinct species, it will exhibit the traits . With the genome of the Woolly Mammoth fully sequenced and the belief that their reintroduction to the tundra would recover the once-productive grassland , this method is both plausible and advantageous. However, Dr Dalén of the Swedish Museum of Natural History recognises that the production of this species may ‘lead to suffering for female elephants, which would not be ethically justifiable.’

Breeding back is defined as the human attempt to restore lost ancestors or subspecies of surviving species through strategic mating to incrementally restore their lost anatomy and genome to a closely-related modern species . It is made possible due to the genetic material of the extinct wild ancestor surviving in the offspring or a related subspecies . Breeding back ensures maximal adaptability to current habitats as it involve live species, rather than re-creating a species from a different time and climate . This is typically attempted with animals of the same species that have been altered by domestication, therefore, they display similar behaviours and belong to similar ecological niches . A case such as this involves the Auroch; the ancestor of the domestic cow that reached extinction in the early 17th century due to agriculture and domestication . The first attempt to revive the species occurred during the 1930’s by two German zoologists, brothers Lutz and Heinz Heck . Their creation, Heck Cattle, was achieved over a period of 12 years through the breeding of domestic cattle and fighting bulls. However, Heck Cattle do not share the anatomical description of the Auroch, only traits of aggression and size, and therefore are not considered to be a full recreation. Nevertheless, this attempt has aided in current endeavours with Heck Cattle becoming a new element for experimentation. The Taurus Foundation and Rewilding Europe, two conservation organisations are collaborating towards the goal of Auroch re-introduction, have configured rival projects in Germany, Hungary and the Netherlands. The process is based on combining Auroch traits from domestic cattle through selective breeding to produce one lineage .

In the debate of de-extinction, the reason for the death of an entire species must be considered. The theory of natural selection states that ‘species with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive’ , therefore, revival may prove futile if the species was not genetically suited to survival, hence their extinction. Contrastingly, regarding species that were deliberately driven to extinction, Henri Kerkdijk-Otten of the Megafauna Foundation states that ‘it is the moral imperative of humans to undo colossal disasters of this kind for which we are responsible’ . However, this is also applicable to species that are currently endangered due to human actions of habitat destruction, hunting and pollution . Therefore, rather than focussing on reviving lost species, should efforts be centred on preventing existing species from meeting the same fate? Studies from the University of California conclude that the effort and resources required to complete the immense task of reviving an extinct species far outweighs that of conserving current endangered species, with the speculated cost of a singular species revival being tens of millions of dollars . With currently over 20,000 species endangered, the planet is believed to be entering a sixth human-induced mass extinction, therefore, conservation efforts must be greater than ever . However, if de-extinction efforts are funded, money will be taken from current conservation and may lead endangered animals down the path of extinction, counteracting the goal of increasing biodiversity.

With the only successful de-extinction attempt unable to be re-introduced into the wild, the environmental consequences of de-extinction are unknown. However, there are a multitude of ethical and conservational concerns raised in the discussion of the issue. The majority of concerns lie in the disruption of threatened habitats through unnatural interactions between species. Recent decades have seen global warming increasingly altering species’ habitats beyond survival ranges, consequently, re-introduction may prove to be difficult as these species may not possess the traits best suited to survival in a now vastly different environment . Unable to co-exist, species that once lived in harmony may drive each other to extinction and with many currently endangered and habitats in peril, slight changes such as the loss of a water source, let alone the addition of a species, could prove to be disastrous .

Additionally, many scientists do not credit the proposition of de-extinction as they believe the ‘wonder’ factor drives the fascination , this, an unviable reason to risk serious threat to current and thriving ecosystems . Concrete evidence as to the positive impacts of species re-introduction is necessary before commitment to a process as the risks to ecosystems are too great. Furthermore, Sherkow and Greely of the Stanford Centre for Law and Biosciences collaborate to question where the line is drawn. With speculation surrounding the possible resurrection of species as far extinct as the Woolly Mammoth, is the revival of early humans a plausible development? With current societal issues surrounding population density and equality, simply the notion of this gives rise to a plethora of ethical concerns .

Despite the surrounding controversy, there are a variety of plausible and beneficial outcomes said to result from the de-extinction of certain species. An increase in ecosystem diversity may lead to greater longevity of habitats and stability within communities . In support of this, Swedish science journalist Torill Kornfeldt has found that the restoration of the passenger pigeon may have tangible positive impacts to ecosystems . Species that once co-existed with the passenger pigeon are threatened, subsequently, Kornfeldt hypothesises that resurrection may ‘revive and revitalise these struggling ecosystems’ through an increase in diversity. Techniques of de-extinction may also be advantageous to closely related species, such as the case between the Thylacine and the Tasmanian Devil. Tasmanian Devil populations are currently under serious threat due to the prevalence of Devil Facial Tumour Syndrome; however, the restoration of the Thylacine may disperse populations, consequently, lessening the impact on populations as increases in genome diversity prove to decrease disease susceptibility .

With current advances in genetics and biotechnology facilitating the application of widely researched techniques by communicating and collaborating scientists, the prospect of successful de-extinction in the near future is not inconceivable. However, the mitigation of human induced loss of biodiversity must be influenced by ethical concerns and in consideration of potential limitations to minimise the effect on current ecosystems. Species such as the Thylacine and the Passenger Pigeon may walk the Earth once more, however, their return risks the disappearance of currently threatened and endangered species. Therefore, in the debate of de-extinction, it must be considered whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential consequences.