It is estimated that 3 species per hour are being driven to extinction on Earth, a rate
1000 times greater than the natural background extinction rate [1]. This exceedingly high rate
can be attributed almost entirely to human activity; from deforestation to hunting and poaching,
we profoundly impact our planet's biodiversity.
Advances in the fields of gene therapy, cloning, and cross-breeding have elucidated the
fact that de-extinction, or the resurrection of species that no longer have any living members,
has become a feasible possibility [2]. This raises a number of bioethical concerns, namely
diminishing the gravity of extinction, the impact on current living species, and the diversion of
funding away from current conservation efforts. However, humanity bears a moral obligation to
resurrect species driven to extinction by human activity, while also addressing the underlying
causes of their disappearance to prevent future extinctions.
Technological breakthroughs and application
Gene editing is heralded as one of the greatest biotechnological breakthroughs of the
past century, empowering researchers to alter the genes of any organism [3]. This capability
promises to eliminate diseases, strengthen crop resilience, and even resurrect extinct species
[4].
To harness this technology for de-extinction, scientists need a species for which we have
surviving DNA, and a close living relative. The woolly mammoth provides an exciting prospect
for this field. Its recent extinction, which can be partly attributed to hunting from early humans,
can be estimated at 4,000 years ago, which means there is ample surviving genetic material
from which to harvest DNA [5]. Additionally, researchers believe that the key adaptations that
diverged woolly mammoths from Asian elephants and allowed woolly mammoths to endure
harsh Arctic winters may be linked to only a few dozen specific gene loci that have already been
isolated [6]. It is therefore possible that, using CRISPR and embryonic implantation, scientists
could breed a hybrid between the Asian elephant and the extinct woolly mammoth. Through
careful crossbreeding of these hybrids, a once-extinct species could be feasibly resurrected with
existing technology. This is far from the end of the battle, as there are still significant hurdles
beyond the resurrection of a single individual. Scientists regularly struggle to maintain small
captive populations of endangered species, and the complexities of building the species'
population back from a small number of individuals may lie beyond our current capacities.
Restorative justice and ethical arguments
The ongoing human-driven mass extinction sweeping across the planet underscores a
profound ethical dilemma: if humanity bears responsibility for the destruction of tens of
thousands of species, does it not also bear the moral obligation to repair the damage it has
caused? Defined by the four R’s — Restoration, Reconciliation, Rehabilitation, and
Reintegration— the ethical framework of restorative justice provides an exceptional model for
how we should approach the issue of de-extinction [7].
Within this scope, restoration refers to the collection of genomic information and
sequencing of extant and extinct genomes. This process is already taking place for flora at an
estimated 1750 gene banks worldwide and should be expanded to include genomic information
for all threatened fauna [8]. This information can be drawn upon when needed, but researchers
must strive to collect as much information as possible as the number of species lost forever
continues to increase. Once collected, and with continued advances in DNA technology,
humanity should be able to de-extinct any species, though this is far from the end.
In order to combat this mass extinction with de-extinction, humanity first needs to
reconcile with itself. Rehabilitation and reintegration, the next two steps of restorative justice,
refer to repairing habitats before reintroducing recently revived extinct species. These steps,
however, are not feasible in a world that continuously refuses to take accountability for its
actions. The global deforestation rate — estimated to be 13 million hectares per year — coupled
with the warming climate frames de-extinction as a frivolous task if we cannot first reckon and
address the root causes of extinction [9].
Rehabilitation, the penultimate step in restorative justice, maybe the most difficult. The
underlying reason for the extinction of each species must be addressed. Reintroduction is
immoral and irresponsible if the resurrected species are being reintroduced into the exact same
ecosystem in which they went extinct. That would be setting a species up for failure, subjecting
them to the same factors that drove them to extinction in the first place and would likely meet
the same fate. We must work to rehabilitate our natural world first, before facilitating the
reintegration of previously extinct species.
Finally, the reintegration of extinct species is perhaps the most controversial step. While
seemingly daunting, biologists and conservationists have suggested that reintroduction methods
for resurrected species would be nearly identical to those used for species with only captive
survivors or species that have been translocated [10]. These reintegration practices have been
refined over the past 80 years, with numerous success stories, including the peregrine falcon in
the eastern U.S. and the California condor [10]. In cases of recent, human-driven extinctions,
there is little evidence to suggest that the reintegration of resurrected species would present
unprecedented challenges beyond those already managed by conservationists.
Counter
While restorative justice provides a compelling framework for the resurrection of extinct
species, the practice is not without moral objection. There is significant concern that the gravity
of extinction will be diminished by engaging in and funding de-extinction efforts. Suppose our
scientific capabilities continue to progress and we possess the genetic information for a species.
In that case, it may become impossible for any species to be truly extinct, but instead in a
dormant state where they could be revived when better conditions arise. This could lead to a
disillusioned sentiment where it is “ok” for a species to drive a species to extinction, we can just
bring it back in the future when its existence is more favorable. This is a dangerous sentiment,
and one that humanity must do well to avoid, the one thing we do not need is a greater lack of
environmental accountability.
There is also concern that de-extinction research will pull funding away from current
conservation programs, many of which are already critically underfunded. For instance, it is
estimated that of the funding needed for effective global biodiversity protection, only 12.8% to
19.8% is ever allocated [11]. The budget for conservation is already stretched remarkably thin,
and the reallocation of conservation resources to de-extinction efforts would not be a worthwhile
investment.
While the reallocation of funding does provide concern, it ignores the fundamental issue
that conservation is critically underfunded. It is likely that de-extinction efforts could draw
significant public and private interest, reinvigorating the field of conservation. It is also
important to highlight that these fields are not mutually exclusive, and the research and funding
put towards one of them will almost certainly benefit the other. Concern that de-extinction
might diminish the gravity extinction msut be countered through education. Researchers must
emphasize the extraordinary complexity and resource demands of de-extinction, ensuring it is
viewed as an absolute last resort to address human-driven extinctions rather than a justification
for environmental negligence.
Conclusion
The accelerating pace of extinctions driven by human activities calls for urgent ethical
and ecological actions. While de-extinction offers novel possibilities for restoring biodiversity, it
must be approached with caution. Humanity must avoid trivializing extinction or diverting
resources from existing conservation efforts. De-extinction efforts should be used in conjunction
with conservation efforts in a tangible application of groundbreaking biotechnological research.
By adopting a restorative justice framework, with principles of responsibility, rehabilitation, and
reintegration we can help ensure that de-extinction efforts are ethically aligned with our moral
obligations. With a commitment to comprehensive conservation alongside de-extinction,
humanity can begin to rectify our past mistakes and work to sustain biodiversity for future
generations.
WORKS CITED
(1) De Vos, Jurriaan M., et al. “Estimating the Normal Background Rate of Species
Extinction.” Conservation Biology, vol. 29, no. 2, Apr. 2015, pp. 452–62.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12380.
(2) DESALLE, ROB, and GEORGE AMATO. “Conservation Genetics, Precision
Conservation, and De-Extinction.” The Hastings Center Report, vol. 47, no. 4, 2017,
pp. S18–23. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26625193. Accessed 14 Nov. 2024.
(3) Office, U. S. G. A. (2020, April 23). Science & tech spotlight: CRISPR gene editing | u.
S. Gao. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-478sp
(4) Ledford, H. CRISPR, the disruptor. Nature 522, 20–24 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1038/522020a
(5) Kuzmin, Yaroslav V. “Extinction of the Woolly Mammoth ( Mammuthus Primigenius )
and Woolly Rhinoceros ( Coelodonta Antiquitatis ) in Eurasia: Review of
Chronological and Environmental Issues.” Boreas, vol. 39, no. 2, Apr. 2010, pp.
247–61. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.2009.00122.x.
(6) Lynch, Vincent J., et al. “Elephantid Genomes Reveal the Molecular Bases of Woolly
Mammoth Adaptations to the Arctic.” Cell Reports, vol. 12, no. 2, July 2015, pp.
217–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.06.027.
(7) Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. “Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?” Annual
Review of Law and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 1, Dec. 2007, pp. 161–87.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.110005
(8) McCouch, Susan R., et al. “Genomics of Gene Banks: A Case Study in Rice.” American
Journal of Botany, vol. 99, no. 2, Feb. 2012, pp. 407–23.
https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1100385.
(9) Runyan, Christiane, and Paolo D’Odorico. Global Deforestation. Cambridge university
press, 2016.
(10) Novak, B. J. (2018). De-Extinction. Genes, 9(11), 548.
https://doi.org/10.3390/genes9110548
(11)Thomas B White, Silviu O Petrovan, Alec P Christie, Philip A Martin, William J
Sutherland, What is the Price of Conservation? A Review of the Status Quo and
Recommendations for Improving Cost Reporting, BioScience, Volume 72, Issue 5, May
2022, Pages 461–471, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac007