De-Extinction Cloning

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

I think that once there is a successful procedure done there will initially be a very small market for human

Although bringing back extinct animals seem to concern only a small group of people it

We should clone endangered and extinct animals because they can help cure diseases that we don’t know how to do today or that we don't have the ability to do today. It is a good idea to clone animals because

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

Extinct species should not be brought back into existence because the idea of de-extinction diverts attention and funding from protecting many endangered species that can still thrive in their environment. According to text 3, lines 7-10, “De-extinction intends to resurrect single, charismatic species, yet millions of species are at risk of extinction. De-extinction can only be an infinitesimal part of solving the crisis that now sees species of animals ... going extinct at a thousand times their natural rates”. Another piece of evidence is displayed in Text 4, lines 3-8, “It is much more sensible to put all the limited resources for science and

Care Should Be Taken in Cloning The movie Jurassic Park has given a hint on the disastrous effects of cloning, for cloned animals might result in the extinction of human beings. Therefore, some people argue that though science has the ability to clone animals and plants, it does not mean it should be and scientists need to take care of cloning. I agree with the argument, for the prevalence of cloning might lead to another Jurassic Park tragedy. More specifically, the prevalence of cloning should not be advocated because of the exploitation of animals, uncertainty of science and technology as well as the loss of gene diversity.

Conservations budgets are limited, assuming that the resurrection would be covered, maintaining the animals would be even more costly. A program to prevent the extinction of the Northern Rhino, will cost millions of dollars. A Wooly Mammoth would be even more because scientists know a lot of things about the Northern Rhino. Scientists are almost blind when it comes to the Wooly Mammoths. A study led by Joseph Bennett found that bringing back the Wooly Mammoth could lead to biodiversity loss rather than gain. In New Zealand, there is government funding for 11 extinct animals, and it might sacrifice triple the number of alive species. (Elena Motivans, 2017). Why would anyone want to risk the lives of our living Asian elephants when scientists don’t even know if this experiment will actually work. Spending all that money, and possibly killing another species is to big of a

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).

Cloning can occur naturally, but this mainly happens with bacteria. Bacteria does this thing that is called asexual reproduction and causes it to reproduce the exact same copy as before. “When they clone an animal, first they take skin cells from the animal to be cloned. Then, they take an unfertilized egg from the adult female of the same species and remove the nucleus of the egg which contains the other half of the DNA, leaving the mothers egg empty. After that they put the clone’s DNA into the female’s egg and that is how fertilization begins.” (Ades Jane)

An endangered species that goes extinct eventually ends up affecting all the animals in their habitat. If an animal that various other animals depend on goes extinct other animals could also go into extinction since they most likely will not be able to adapt quickly to finding new prey leading to starvation. Animals could also face the problem of having to immigrate to a new environment for food leading to their extinction because they were unable to adapt quickly to the new habitat. Through the clone technology scientists hope they will soon be able to save more species saying “we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and thus we could forever preserve endangered species” (Document A). The argument of saving endangered species is invalid because it is rare that a clone embryo will survive and if only few animals of a kind are left they will be forced to keep inserting embryos into a surrogate mother that could potentially kill the mothers too. If their bodies cannot handle carrying another organism or if having surgery a lot to insert the embryo the new mothers can now also die leaving the species without anyone to carry their children. While trying to save a species they run the risk of completely killing it off in a shorter amount of time than they expected. Even if the embryo lives up to the birthing moment the probability of the clone surviving is so little that they would be spending money to create more of a species that would return right back to being endangered in a short period of

The thought of bringing back animals from the past has been a fascination of scientists, writers, and filmmakers for many years. With some recent breakthroughs in cloning this may be possible, specifically with mammoths. While it may be possible, the question of the ethics and logistics around it must be raised. The benefits of this recreating a mammoth are more superficial in my opinion, but they are still relevant. The data we could take from observing an animal that has not existed for thousands of years, or the closest thing we will ever come to it. From this data we could make better inferences about the ecology and evolution of mammoths. There would also be an enormous economic benefit to the country who would host this species, which

Cloning is an amazing complex thing! In this paper a person will learn some basic cloning information, the history of cloning, good and bad things about cloning, human cloning, and bringing back endangered species with the use of cloning. Information includes the processes and some animals that have been cloned. The history includes the different cloning achievements starting with the first artificial twin. The good and bad parts will of course talk about the pros and cons of cloning. Human cloning tells what is the use of it and how people feel about it. The last part talks about the possibility of using cloning to protect endangered species, and if it would be enough to help the population. If cloning is used right it could change the world. It could help people to determine ways of curing diseases and viruses. It could help farmers produce stronger and leaner cattle. Many people in todays society have heard of cloning and think of putting something in one machine and another one comes out the other machine, but that’s not even close to how it actually works. A better story would be Dolly the sheep. Dolly was the first mammal made through the process of somatic nuclear transfer, and was cloned from an adult sheep udder cell (The History Of Cloning). Cloning is one thing that is rarely talked about on the news, but could be used in so many ways to change the world as we know it.

Technology is the sole reason cloning is even possible, but it is not enough to save endangered species on its own. Due to technology, extinct species may even possible be brought back into existence. A closely related species, currently living, that could serve as a surrogate mother and a well-preserved source of DNA from the extinct

In my view, bringing extinct species back to life only makes sense with animals that were extinct in the last years, days or hours because these animals played a role in the current ecosystem. The loss of those animals can cause a disequilibrium in the world, thier return can be useful. In contrast, animals that died hundreds or thousands of years ago don’t matters anymore. The cloning of such animals wouldn’t make sense, because you couldn’t free them without disbalancing the ecosystem. The only reason could be to improve the cloning techniques but what should scientists do after they cloned them? Put them in a