The issue of discussion for this week focuses on the idea of “de-extinction” of a species. I will be specifically focusing on the ideas of Ronald Sandler in his ethical analysis, “The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species”. In his essay, Sandler analyzes various arguments in favour and against the practice of species de-extinction, but ultimately makes the conclusion that, although neither of the ethical arguments are very strong, it is not a priority that humanity should readily accept without addressing the concerns. For such an idea to be considered “ethically acceptable”, Sandler states that there are many concerns that need to be addressed first. I will be analyzing the concerns that Sandler mentions regarding the unnaturalness, animal welfare, and ecological issues tied to the process of bringing a species back from extinction (Sandler 355).

The technology used to bring a species back from extinction involves the use of “transgenic biotechnology” which is used to mix genomic material of individuals that could not have bred otherwise. This is where protests arise against the “unnaturalness” of de-extinction and the associated technology (Sandler 357). Although he does acknowledge the validity of this argument, he identifies potential flaws in this argument. One of which is that our society is reliant upon many things that would not exist without human intervention or the purposeful crossbreeding of species for the benefit of humans (Sandler 357). Specifically, vaccines and much of the agricultural products exist today because of the use of some form transgenic biotechnology and the intervention by humans.

The concerns regarding animal welfare are valid and these concerns can be tied into many other fields of scientific research and just the overall impacts of humans on animal species. Sandler provides a rebuttal to this through examples of the current use of animals in scientific research and the animal agriculture. Sandler argues that because of how we already treat animals, concerns regarding animal suffering in the use of transgenic biotechnology do not pose a special or particularly imposing problem (Sandler 358). However, I am inclined to disagree with his argument, specifically the use of the example in the argument itself. Our current treatment of animals in research and agriculture is not ethical, at least in my opinion. The concerns regarding animal welfare need to be addressed in these issues as well as the issues surrounding de-extinction. I believe Sandler makes a mistake of the use of a logical fallacy in his argument. His justification that it de-extinction does not pose any more harm onto animals as does scientific research and agriculture is a red herring that pushes the focus away from the question that should actually be discussed, if our current practices should be considered ethically acceptable.

The ecological concerns regarding the de-extinction of a long-lost species are valid, and I believe should be of the top arguments against the use of transgenic biotechnology. Sandler argues that bringing an extinct species back does not address the environmental or ecological issues that caused extinction in the first place, climate change is an example that he referred to (Sandler 358). Another concern pertains to the potential impact the de-extinct species could have on the ecosystem (Sandler 358), as it is arguably very different from when the species was last alive because this topic is discussing a species that has long been extinct. Many of the potential lost species to choose from were lost due to human activity and destruction of habitat and without addressing the human activities that caused the extinction in the first place, biotechnology to bring a species back from extinction will not help us.

While it sounds like a very cool scientific advancement to bring a species back from extinction, I do not believe it can be considered ethically acceptable. Although, the technology does have implications for future conservation efforts on endangered species, and as alluded to by Sandler, can be used as a last-ditch conservation effort (Sandler, 354). I agree with Sandler’s conclusion that this topic is not a priority over current issues that plague animals’ species, however I do believe that parts of his argument for the use of transgenic biotechnology may be slightly flawed.

Sources:

Sandler, R. (2014). The ethics of reviving long extinct species. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 354-360.