Why Do Scientists Pursue De-Extinction?

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.

In the The Case for De-Extinction: Why We Should Bring Back the Woolly Mammoth the author talks about how to bring these extinct animals back by using DNA and how it will not only benefit us but the upcoming generations. Unlike the author in the The Case Against De-Extinction: It’s a Fascinating but Dumb Idea he says “as National Geographic photographer Joel Sartore has emphasized to me, zoos are already overwhelmed trying to breed endangered species for reintroduction and thus facing triage conundrums about which species to save and which to let go.” (Ehrlich n.pag.) So as I stated in the claim if we can`t bring back the extinct animals we should at least protect the ones that are about to go extinct and learn from our

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

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.

Over the past decades, scientists have developed numerous approach to de-extinct species through back breeding, cloning and genetic engineering. Bringing back extinct species has advantages for both humans and animals. The de-extinction of species such as woolly mammoth and saber tooth tigers would not only advanced scientific knowledge but also have environmental benefit such as restoring environment that are damaged or threatened with the help of certain now-extinct species. But the consequences to bringing extinct species back greatly outweighs the positive. While Victor Frankenstein pursuit for knowledge in itself is justified, playing with the boundaries between life and death is something that should not have tempered with. Extinct species could carry diseases that could potentially wipe humanity from the face of the planet or result in other unforeseen consequences. The de-extinction of species should not be tolerated in order to avoid consequences that could endanger the lives of humanity as well surrounding species.

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

Initially, like some teenagers in my class, the interest in genetic engineering was nothing more than a fad. My classmates would chatter for a few moments about the subject of de-extinction. But, the topic disappeared into the background, replaced by pure middle school gossip. However, there was something about the concept of de-extinction that intrigued me. And, as the notion sunk in, the ideas began to flourish.How did they bring the animal back? Could we bring back other animals? Would they be different from their older counterparts? As my internal monolog of questions grew, I sought my mother for help. When asked, she stated one word,”Write.” With a smile on her face, she knew that I had begun to discover an interest. With my mother’s advice

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.

For thousands of years, humans have been some sort of virus to Earth, destroying habitats, and causing millions of different species to go extinct, for example, the dodo. After all of the destruction we caused, scientists have found a way to reverse it, to a certain extent. The fantasy of bringing back extinct species is now a reality. There have been cases of scientists successfully bringing back an extinct species. Cloning for de-extinction should be widely accepted, scientist proper tools, good reasons, and they have already cloned a few species.

Many of the different benefits and reasons also come from a more ethical and moral code rather than just for pure science. Resurrecting a mammoth could also undo their extinction, due to prehistoric humans nearly eleven thousand years ago. Some would argue that humans have a moral obligation to re-introduce species whose extinction they caused, either directly, as is probably in the case of the mammoth, or indirectly, as a result of another factor such as global climatic disruption. The value of bringing back mammoths may come from the need to satisfy intrinsic human curiosity. However, creating or re-creating different life forms may also be of great instrumental value to humanity, such as in the blocking the emergence of pathogens, or in helping to ensure the continued existence of life on the planet.

In the argument of “Should We Bring Back Extinct Species” by Joseph Bennett and Ben J. Novak it is discussed whether or not species that were once dead could be brought back to life. Scientist should not bring back extinct species.This all sounds like a real jurassic park dinosaurs could make a come back but why should scientist bring back an extinct species when we can’t even keep our still living animals alive. Joseph Bennett the assistant of biology from Carleton University states “Those who support bringing back extinct species will say that doing so will help support other species. But scientist already have important species-such as elephants tigers, and rhinos-that are in serious trouble.” If scientist were to concentrate on resurrecting

One of the most famous quotes from the movie “Jurassic Park” states as follows, “Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should.” This quote was made by the character who is acted by Jeff Goldblum. When saying this, in the movie, he was in the presentation room. There was a presentation of how the scientists gathered the DNA from mosquitos that fed off of dinosaur blood. This movie is based off of the reality of technology and science today. Scientists can actually bring back an extinct species or even alter other desired genes. Many benefits from altering genes exist, but some are viewed as morally unacceptable.