De-Extinction Research Paper

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

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

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

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.

For the longest time, in our history and modern times, people have thought of animals as friends and even sometimes sacred beings. Cloning would allow you to keep your friend back from the dead as a new being. The article states that certain labs are using cloning to help bring back endangered species, as well. This is important because there are many animal species that are endangered, soon

For many years, animals have been used to facilitate the testing of new procedures, drugs, and quest for information. Now as we enter the 21st century, humanity has created computer prediction models, tissue cloning, and great understanding of chemical reactions. However most of these new methods still are only sparingly used, despite their accuracy, and animal testing still remains the test method of choice. There's a newly developed technology that can allow doctors and scientists to duplicate living organisms. This development in technology is known as cloning, and it has forever changed the views of life. Cloning can serve as the answer to problems which plaque the human, animal, and plant populations. Any living species can now be

Have you ever caught yourself dreaming what society would be like if humans were to coexist with dinosaurs? Scientist are currently working hard on Bioengineering, which, Bioengineering which is another word for de-extinction. So this brings along a controversial topic whether or not to bring extinct animals back into today's society. Some believe bringing extinct animals back into existence would increase genetic diversity and small populations, while others believe extinct animals should not be brought back into existence due to the dangers the future holds. Scientist should not de-extinct species because society doesn’t have the environment to sustain their lives, there are also many moral hazards to come along with Bioengineering , finally

De-extinction: a scientific breakthrough and a process in which humans can use genetic engineering to bring back a species that was once extinct. Despite how intriguing it is that humans can accomplish this, the act of using de-extinction to bring back different species can be detrimental to the environments that they are introduced into. Humans can control how they create and modify a species that they bring back from extinction, an example being which species they use to replicate another species and the modifications they make for it to be able to thrive. However, once they are let out into an environment, the control lessens and the species can kill off different creatures and bring diseases to others, overall having a negative effect. There is no telling what a species will do if it is brought back from extinction, especially if that particular species died off decades or centuries ago and their habitat is no longer what it once was. There would be a chance that they would be brought back from extinction only to go extinct again. De-extinction should be avoided because there are too many risks such as costs, diseases, and the ideology that any species can come back after going extinct.

According to another article called “5 Reasons To Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To)” by Breanna Draxler, “De-extinction could be a big step forward for genetic engineering.” This means that if scientist can modify DNA to bring back extinct animals, it can help them achieve more with this great accomplishments. Furthermore, according to “Should We Bring Extinct Species Back From The Dead?” by David Shultz, “For decades the notion of “de-extinction” hovered on the scientific fringes, with new advances in genetic engineering.” To explain, when scientist were trying to find out how to bring extinct animals back to life, they discovered new things in genetic engineering that got them one step closer to actually modifying DNA and bringing back extinct animals. So the scientist were being very clever for trying. In addition, according to David Shultz, “researchers believe that it’s time to start thinking seriously about which animals we might be able to bring back, and which ones would do the most good for the ecosystems they left behind.” To explain, it shows here that scientist are being clever by thinking about which animals they should bring back and which ones they shouldn’t. Because they do need some of the animals to come back to life and help out the ecosystems. But others dont need to come back or shouldn’t come back because they could be a waste of time to the scientist or they could just be very

Experts say around 99.9 percent of the species that ever existed on planet earth are now extinct. Recently however scientists have been working on ways of how to revive some extinct species back to life. Scientists are attempting to bring 24 extinct species back to life. There has been a lot of work put into researching how this might become possible. So far, attempts have been able to bring a few species to life, however, most only manage to live for a few seconds up to a couple of minutes. However the rate at which Biotechnology is continuing to advance is incredible and experts believe that this science fiction might just come true. This very near and plausible future however is not light work. Many ethical problems arise as people weigh

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.

How cool would it be to have extinct species back on earth. Scientists should stop continuing de-extinction because there are unforeseen consequences like scientists would half to make enough extinct species for at least one healthy sized population, half to stop mammoths from raiding crop lands, and it could become an invasive species that could have more for unseen consequences.

Erika, as I record your discussion you made serious points on species going extinct and the de extinction procedure. Species plays a significant function in humans live and in the natural surroundings. Erika we as humans eat food and it keeps us active. Do you think species will be the same or have the same nutrients? As we know in our environment today chemicals are used to make species grow faster. It makes me question and wonder how scientists are taking our environment into their own hands. There should special laws on how and what species are to be recreated. I personally feel species should be left alone and let our creator continue to replenish our

In 1997, the first primate was created by embryonic cell nuclear transfer. The scientist Li Meng, John Ely, Richard Stouffer, and Don Wolf, fused an early stage embryonic cell with an enucleated monkey egg cells using electrical shock. The embryos were then implanted into a surrogate. Out of 29 cloned embryos, two monkeys were born. The female was named Neti and the male was named Ditto (“The History of Cloning” par. 25-26). This experiment showed that primates, which are the closest relatives to humans, can be cloned. Which gives scientist a good model to continue to research cloning, to find more cures for disorders and diseases. In 2001 Pasqualino Loi of the University of Teramo in Italy and his colleagues, recovered cells from the ovaries of two female mouflons and injected their nuclei into a sheep egg cells that had their nuclei removed. This resulted into a baby mouflon (“The History of Cloning” par. 30-31). This allows scientist to continue to explore cloning as a way to create animals belonging to endangered or extinct species. In 2009, using goats as egg donors and surrogates a team of scientist led by Alberto Fernandez, cloned the first extinct animal, a Spanish mountain goat called the Bucardo (“The History of Cloning” par. 30-31). Even though the survived gestation died soon after birth, this achievement showed to scientist that it is possible to cloned extinct species and it could work for another species.