Should We Destroying DNA To Bring Back Extinct Animals?

John Wiens, an evolutionary biologist at Stony Brook University in New York says, “There is a terrible urgency to saving threatened species and habitats.” He continues in saying “As far as I can see, there is little urgency for bringing back extinct ones. Why invest millions of dollars in bring a handful of species back from the dead, when there are millions still waiting to be discovered, described, and protected?” This is a problem for many scientists and Paul R. Ehrlich states in his article, The Case of De- Extinction:It is a Fascinating but Dumb Idea, says that “It is much more sensible to put all the limited resources for science and conservation into preventing extinctions, by tackling the causes of demise….” This is proving that de-extinction is a bad idea because of the facts that it is more important to put money and research into conservation efforts. By focusing on de-extinction. We are tearing away our focus on these efforts and putting it into something that may or may not work. Something never tested that could possibly hurt not help the environment. Paul R Ehrlich also states that “De-extinction seems far- fetched, financially problematic, and extremely unlikely to succeed.” With de- extinction hindering conservation efforts and being unlikely to succeed it is clear that we should not even attempt de-extinction. However hindering conservation efforts is only one way that de-extinction is a bad

Imagine a world with a flourish environment, with animals you would never dream to see. Imagine a world where we could bring back extinct animals. Some people believe that bringing back animals is unethical. But these animals can do so much for us. We should bring back extinct animals because it can help the ecosystem and some of the animals extinction was our fault.

back extinct animals is very controversial but we need to bring them back to restore ecosystems

Scientists are now very closer than ever to having the bringing back the Woolly Mammoth. The plan is for scientists to first try to create a hybrid between an Asian elephant and a woolly mammoth. The plan is to do this by genome sequencing. Many scientists are involved in this and animals, the food chain and ecosystem will be affected by this. However, scientists are expecting this to happen in a couple of years and maybe even more time. The scientists want to do this because Mammoths could help modern day animals live in cooler locations in which they are at much lower risk of conflict with humans. This is occurring in North Siberia. Scientists are expecting positive results and are hoping for positive results. Therefore, scientists are close to bringing back Woolly Mammoths.

Recently, DNA testing has been employed to create a genetic database of endangered animal species. Using this information, scientists have even cloned animals.

Everything in life happens for a reason, and this includes the extinction of species with and without human involvement. To reverse the process of de-extinction as some people put it “amounts to playing God” (96). Although the science behind bringing a species back is admittedly amazing, there are other ways the time and money could be spent. Spending money on animals that are on the brink of extinction, and developing techniques for successfully growing their population, are much more viable options. Frankly, de-extinction, although very remarkable, is not something that should be heavily pursued. Apart from observing a woolly mammoth lounge around behind a thick pane of glass, there is very little reason to use de-extinction to revive one. Our efforts should be turned to the millions of species that currently inhabit the earth, known and

In nature, there are cases where species go extinct due to humans or for uncontrollable reasons. Recent scientific development has allowed a new idea called de-extinction the act of cloning extinct species using DNA samples from the past and biotechnology. However, extinct species should not be brought back to existence as the idea of de-extinction diverts attention and funding from protecting many endangered species that can still thrive in their environment. Another issue that arises with de-extinction is that resurrected species could become pests in their new environment.

Scientists can prove evolution more and learn about it more and how it works (Pros and Cons of De-extinction, 2018). Scientists will also be able to eradicate diseases that are caused by specific genes by introducing immune species in the wild (Pros and Cons of De-extinction, 2018). Lastly, if scientists are able to bring back extinct species, people could get an insight into the evolution process (Pros and Cons of De-extinction, 2018). However, that is what scientists want people to think. Sure people could learn about evolution more, but if scientists are able to resurrect and use mostly elephant DNA then scientists won't learn much about mammoth evolution because the mammoth will have the evolution of the elephant. So how can the scientists know? Also how can scientists make immunities from the mammoth if the mammoth is the one producing new diseases that scientists are not aware of

The idea of using genetics to bring forth extinct animals is thrilling. Scientists and civilians alike consider all the insight and information we will discover once we construct animals that lived thousands of years before modern times. Unfortunately, there is a problem. With the CRISPR technology we can only edit genes, not change them completely. A prime example of this is the wooly mammoth. According to Lila Shapiro, the author of We May Resurrect the Mammoth Sooner Than You Think, she stated that CRIPR would recreate a hybrid, not a genetically correct mammoth. In Shapiro’s article, Dr. George Church is the leading scientist in de-extinction. His works is primary evolve around woolly mammoth. To bring them back from extinction, George

Or a pterodactyl soaring overhead. Sounds far fetched? Yet, genetic engineering makes it possible to "resurrect" extinct species, as shown in Jurassic Park. The original film, based on a Michael Crichton novel, relied on the plausible-enough idea that dinosaur DNA could be recovered by collecting ancient amber-trapped-mosquitoes that had supped on dinosaur blood. However, Jurassic Park isn’t just about dinosaurs.

Today, our society is changing so fast that we barely even notice it’s happening. Soon enough, our society will be able to do what the scientists in Jurassic Park did, and create copies of our “once exist” giants. But while science and technology evolves, we should be the ones to bring up the question not “if we can,’ but rather, “should we?” Dinosaurs are ravenous and dangerous creatures that could tear us apart into pieces, but if properly contained, could be a magnificent sight for many to view. Nature removed the dinosaurs from our planet by selection, but we can use our superior intelligence to play god through biological manipulation. In an article by Thomas Sumner and Bjorn Carey, they discuss the ethics of reviving dead species such as the ones in Jurassic Park, and denote that the technology is in our near future. “Twenty years after the release of Jurassic Park, the dream of bringing back the dinosaurs remains science fiction. But scientists predict that within 15 years they will be able to revive some more recently extinct species, such as the dodo or the passenger pigeon, raising the question of whether or not they should – just because they can” (Sumner and Carey).

let nature be. Unfortunately, they try to replicate animals knowing whether or not there are going to be any defects or if there if the experiment is actually going to function like they expect it to. The U.S congress has " continued to prohibit use of taxpayer dollars for any research that may result in the death of embryos."(People Opposing Views.) However Jurassic Park was all a fantasy many scientists have gotten the idea that you can de-extinct animals.

Throughout history, many scientific theories have been tested, resulting in either scientific accomplishment or failure. Accordingly, this is due to question and desire as well as true doubt. One of these present day ideas is de-extinction, the idea of bringing life back to the species that have become extinct. De-extinction has been questioned of its worth due to the progression, in like manner, the step-back it could bring in scientific research. Hence the certain reason for doubt, it does have true benefits to why it should be tested. De-extinction can not only expand in genetic diversity, but also increase in benefits regarding human health in addition to compound preservation.

De-extinction has the capability of helping the environment, helping the world’s biodiversity, and quite possibly helping the economy. There are many options that are available through de-extinction and the world has the possibility of becoming a greater place through it. Living has become a goal for many species simply because extinction has become a larger threat for those many species. The Earth’s ecosystems are capable of rebirth and returning to the way they used to be. Through de-extinction the world can grow and become something it used to be. It was a clean, open, free world with opportunities in medicine, trade, and many other things. Through the years, humans have become the enemy of the world itself. “Conservation is about the ecosystems that species define and on which they depend” ( Pimm 10). De-extinction is a way for the biodiversity to be corrected from the many mistakes we’ve made in the past. Life will always find a

It seems that genetic engineering is one of the only sciences that can pull the species out of the whirlpool of extinction for another 100 or so years, but it