The topic of this week’s readings was that of de-extinction, a burgeoning technology which combines our knowledge of ecosystems, genealogy, and the extinction process with our knowledge of cloning and genetic modification. This technology would enable us to effectively “bring back” species both from the brink of extinction as well as back through history.
In his ‘Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species’ Ron Sandler specifies between recently extinct species and ones that have not been around for a long time, calling these latter projects ‘deep de-extinction’, and focusses his paper on these. Sandler goes over some objections to this technology, namely “that it is unnatural; that it could cause animal suffering; that it could be ecologically problematic or detrimental to human health; and that it is hubristic or akin to playing God” (Sandler 4). He also discusses arguments that favour de-extinction efforts, “that it is a matter of justice; that it would reestablish lost value; that it would create new value; and that we need it as a conservation last resort” (2). Sandler concludes that these are valid considerations and that ultimately “de-extinction is in many respects a luxury. It is fine to pursue if people want, so long as it does not interfere with or compromise ethically important things” (6).
I enjoyed Sandler’s paper, agreeing with his thoughtful analysis of both sides of the issue, but found myself in disagreement with his conclusion. I do not believe that de-extinction, especially deep de-extinction is “fine” to pursue on the whim of humans for luxurious hobbyist purposes.
For me there are many unknowable risks (or perhaps these are simply unknowns to me, someone who is scientifically illiterate): Animals exist within an eco-system. If we bring back long-dead species, they may not have the appropriate habitat or food available. Additionally, they could be competition for whatever species have moved into their place in the ecosystem, putting them at risk. How will they learn the behaviours needed for survival in their new environment?
Quite often these animals are only brought back for study and are not released into the wild, which Sandler defends by saying there are many animals who live in lab conditions and that “the animal welfare concerns [raised] do not significantly differentiate it from many other research and conservation practices involving animals” (5) concluding that deep de-extinction should not be abandoned due to this. However at this point I am forced to wonder; if we are not bringing these animals back to release them into the wild, to fill some ecological gap, for what purpose would we be pursuing this? If the animals are destined to live in a lab, other than our own vanity and desire to play with science, what benefit does deep de-extinction bring? And especially what benefits does it bring that actually outweigh the possibility for suffering? My opinion is that there is very little value.
As a result of the above concerns I was refreshed to watch Stanley Temple’s Tedx talk. Temple argues that de-extinction should be pursued with the utmost caution, but helped enlighten me to some areas in which the technology can be used in cases of more recently extinct species who went extinct as a result of their habitats being eroded but now those habitats are thriving, or when they went extinct due to extreme hunting, but now we are better at preventing out of control hunting like that today, especially through the use of ecological reserves and the like.
The most promising case to me though was the cases he described in which an ‘evolutionary bottleneck’ has occurred. This happens when a species is so endangered that there are so few members left that cloning and other de-extinction technologies can be used promote greater genetic diversity and healthy reproduction.
So this is the main way in which I agree with Sandler: de-extinction is best used as a conservational last resort (4), in tandem with other conservation efforts to promote the other factors that are affecting that species’ ability to thrive. When a species is on the brink of extinction and we are actively working to conserve that species’ habitat so we know it will have a context in which to thrive, I argue that de-extinction technologies can and in fact should be used to promote biodiversity and to prevent the unknown impacts that losing that animal could have on its ecosystem. However, I believe there are too many unknowns about long extinct species, and bringing them back just to live in a scientifically studied context is just not worth the potential harms to the animals.
- Renée
Sources
Sandler, Ronald. (2013) ‘The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species’ Conservation Biology, Volume 28, No. 2, (pp 354–360). Boston MA. Available at:
https://doi-org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.1111/cobi.12198
Temple, Stanley. (2013) ‘De-extinction: a game-changer for conservation biology’. TedxDeExtinction Talk. Available at:
Hey Renée,
I appreciate this very measured response from you to Sandler’s paper! I think that the “cool” factor does play a little bit too much into our decision-making into whether this technology is an ethical approach to conservation, or even just ethically permissible in itself in how much we’re fiddling with genes. So, I like the back-and-forth between your opinions and Sandler’s arguments, as you highlight a lot of important considerations and potential risks entailed by de-extinction (and these are risks determined by what we know at present – imagine all the risks that we aren’t scientifically poised to calculate!) Of course, this risk aversion in itself isn’t a good enough reason to stop us from proceeding with this innovation if it does present some ecological benefits, but I’m with you in that I don’t think this would be at all my first choice as an ecological strategy. I think seeing it as a last resort is a fair enough assessment. I appreciate how thoroughly you evaluate Sandler’s paper, and I think you did a good job overall in this post!
~ John