Much of the public first became familiar with de-extinction thanks to the famous movie, Jurassic Park (1990). Except the kind of de-extinction that scientists are interested in today does not include bringing back dinosaurs. Scientists today are looking into reintroducing the passenger pigeon, wooly mammoth, tasmanian tiger, and many other species that have similar living relatives on the planet. Since environmental issues have gained more interest by society in the past few decades, the de-extinction controversy has become much more popular. On one hand people believe that de-extinction is the way to contribute to environmental conservation and preservation by using the modern day technology we have created. (Shapiro, 2015, pg. 189) On the other hand, critics believe that the ethical implications are too overwhelming to actually consider de-extinction. But the idea of de-extinction is so mind-blowing to many people that they are so focused on the aesthetics of it, rather than the ethical, political, and economical implications that will follow. (Cohen, 2014, pg. 165) In order to solve this controversy, STS (Science and Technology Studies) can be used to close the gap between natural sciences and humanities. It allows connects the scientific discoveries and technology with the politics, history, and culture. In this case, STS will be used to understand how revived species will affect the society, economy, and current ecosystems. Scientists will have to be aware of the political and historical context as they determine which animals will be brought back and where they will be released in order to have approval of the stakeholders (politicians, policy makers, local authorities, etcetera).
In Shlomo Cohen’s paper, “The Ethics of De-Extinction” (2014) he lists three commonly used methods of de-extinction including cloning, genetic engineering, and selective breeding. Some species that were used for the cloning method were the wooly mammoth by Russian scientists and the gastric-brooding frog by Australian scientists. In cloning, extinct animal tissue is placed into a female of a similar species’ ovum and then her offspring is supposed to be a clone of the extinct animal. (Cohen, 2014, pg. 166) For example, Beth Shapiro (2015) explains that the wooly mammoth’s closest living relative is the asian elephant. The wooly mammoth’s DNA is compared with the asian elephant’s and a wooly mammoth embryo is placed inside a female asian elephant’s ovum. Following, the female asian elephant produces a clone of a wooly mammoth. (pg. 11-12) As scientists would expect, it is not an exact clone because the mother passes down traits of her own and sometimes scientists receive faulty DNA or fragments of it.
The passenger pigeon has gotten the most attention out of all of the birds by scientists. It is one of the species that U.S. scientists want to use for genetic engineering where DNA fragments are modified to match the DNA of the extinct passenger pigeon. Many questions rise for this method because it approaches the ethical issues of “playing God” and if scientists are creating unnatural organisms by adding and modified DNA. (Cohen, 2014, pg. 166; pg. 173) This will be further explained later in the paper. The third method of de-extinction is selective breeding which has been done on the aurochs in Europe and the quagga in South Africa. For example, similar species of the quagga such as specific types of zebras are bred and certain genes are inserted in order to produce an offspring almost identical to the extinct animal. (Cohen, 2014, pg. 166)
One of the scientists who stands against de-extinction is Stuart Pimm, a biologist and theoretical ecologists who studies biodiversity and conservation biology. Just by hearing how he spends his time, it is obvious that he would argue that humans should be using technology to preserve the animals that are breaching extinction rather than trying to bring back already extinct species. In Pimm’s (2013) article in National Geographic, “Opinion: The Case Against Species Revival”, he gives a few reasons why he disagrees with de-extinction. He says there is no where to put them because if they are released into the wild, they do not have their parents to teach them how to survive. Another issue with releasing them into their old habitat is that many of those habitats have changed since they were a living species, or worse, their changing habitat is what caused them to go extinct. (Pimm, 2013) The next concern of Pimm’s (2013) is that de-extinction is politically harmful in two ways: 1) scientists are too focused on the science and not the society 2) Research priorities could get out of hand. To further explain this, he claims that scientists are so focused on producing the revived species and not considering what will happen when they are released into the real world. The example he gives for the second concern is that he studies in third world countries with almost no funding whereas many other scientists who support de-extinction do their research at Ivy League schools with millions of dollars of funding, but the schools may not even have an environment or ecology school or professors who specialize in conservation. (Pimm, 2013) There is a lot of bias in this article because he spends much of it talking about himself and what he does. He also does not list many primary articles or provide much evidence. But he still puts out ideas that definitely need to be considering when looking at the pros and cons of de-extinction.
Many scientists who are for de-extinction know that those against it believe that they do not care about anything other than the science. For example, Beth Shapiro (2015) is fully aware of this and spent a decent amount of one of her speeches trying to convince social scientists and other people against de-extinction that she and other natural scientist do care and pay attention to the historical and political context of the controversy. (pg. 189)
Some may think that because of the way Shapiro (2015) talks about de-extinction in her book, How to Clone a Wooly Mammoth, that she is against de-extinction, but she is actually just trying to be practical in order to help people understand that de-extinction is not rainbows and butterflies. So before approaching the ethical questions, here are a few practical questions to consider. Shapiro (2015) points out that this science is extremely expensive, so it must be asked if it is economically practical to perform these experiments. Will the benefits exceed the costs?
Next, Shapiro (2015) asks if humans have the technological means. Many people push for de-extinction because they believe we do have the technology, but Shapiro seems to believe otherwise. Lastly she asks how do we decide which species to bring back? (pg. 17-49)
Who gets to decide which species to bring back and how is the decision made? There are a lot of things to consider such as their importance in the ecosystems, their impact on the environment, and their resilience and adaptation abilities. Beth Shapiro (2015) discusses the main questions to ask when deciding which species to bring back: 1) What role did the species play in its ecosystem when it was in existence? 2) How will it interact with today’s species? 3) Should scientists stick to choosing general species or go deeper by choosing subspecies? (pg. 28) The first thing to do when deciding which species to bring back is to look at when it was alive: where did it live, what was its role, what caused it to become extinct? It is easier to answer the rest of these questions if it is known what caused the species to go extinct, because if it is unclear, then it could quickly go extinct again. Recent research done through the University of Exeter in England showed that many extinctions were related to each other. (2012) Specifically, it explains how extinction can have a “ripple effect” in the food web.
Along with all of these scientific questions, STS also plays a big role in deciding which species to bring back. STS forces the sciences to look at the societal, historical, political, and economical context as well. This includes questions like ‘what kind of pathogens could these organisms release that could harm communities?’, ‘how did these animals live with humans when they were alive?’, ‘will the benefits of these animals coming back exceed the costs that it will take to produce them?’. The collaboration of natural scientists, social scientists, historians, politicians, and many other figures allow the answers to these questions. But it is not an answer that they can find through a discovery or scientific method. Rather it is the result of collective agreement over what is best for our humanities and the environment.
After discussing which species should be brought back, it is time for the question: should it actually be done? Since humans now have the technology to fix their mistakes why would they not? There are so many ethical questions to consider that some feel so overwhelmed by them that de-extinction seems to far from our ethical realm. Cohen (2014) explains the five ethical questions that humans must ask and discuss before going through with de-extinction: 1) Does de-extinction promote ecological value? 2) Do humans “owe” de-extinction to the animals that were made extinct due to humans? 3) Does de-extinction “play” God? 4) What is the utilitarian perspective? 5) How does aesthetics play a role in de-extinction? (pg. 165-176)
The first ethical question of ecological value also proposes the question how can humans decide the values of biodiversity? Also, if these de-extinct species are not exactly the same as their ancestors, they could be considered artifacts. Therefore it must be considered how the artifacts affect the ecological value. (Cohen, 2014, pg. 167) The second ethical question asks whether humans owe de-extinction to species that humans made extinct and the first question that should follow this one is ‘what about the extinct species whose cause of extinction is unknown?’ For example, it is not yet been fully discovered how the Dodo bird went extinct and there is still a controversy over how mammoths went extinct. With that being said, how can one say that humans owe either species the gift of de-extinction? The next couple of questions that Cohen (2014) proposes relating to this idea of humans paying back debt are rather philosophical and require the help of STS to create a bridge between the science and philosophy of science. He says that scientists have to decide whether animals are in fact right-bearers, and if so, what are those rights, and are those rights enough to require de-extinction? (pg. 169)
The next question is very popular in American culture and it is the one that questions whether de-extinction is “playing God”? This question is used often in our culture when debating over abortion, genetic engineering, and future life on the planet. Specifically for de-extinction, it is questioned whether it is messing with “the building blocks of creation”. (Cohen, 2014, pg. 173) This is the natural processes of the meiosis occuring on its own without the genetic input of scientists. Secondly, it is argued that scientists are bringing back the dead, which would be extremely wrong in religious terms. Lastly, scientists have the ability to create unnatural organisms, which also sparks a debate over whether that is “playing God”. Shapiro (2015) explains that those who are concerned about “playing God” are not so interested in the de-extinction, but the technology. When technology is not understood fully, it can seem very scary because it can fail and things can go wrong. (pg. 204) If the technology and methods being used to perform de-extinction were publicized more, it could possibly help some people understand the process better.
Next, Cohen (2014) considers the utilitarian perspective and positive versus negative utility. He says that all human action have a purpose, therefore the purpose behind humans actions towards de-extinction must be looked at to decide if they are morally and ethically good. The positive utility includes the recreational value, advancement of scientific knowledge, technological advancement, environmental benefits, and educational and cultural values. (pg. 174) Recreational value would be intrinsic value of excitement of people that will get to experience these revived species. The advancements of science and technology are great outcomes of de-extinction because sometimes there is concern that humans development growth is out of hand, but it is not a bad thing when it is giving back to the environment and its ecosystems. Through de-extinction, many people will learn what happened in the past when these species when extinct and will hopefully get a second chance as Shapiro (2015) says. But with positives there are typically some negatives. The negative utilities that Cohen (2014) lists are unwise expenditure, health concerns, environmental hazard, and harm to animals. (pg. 174) Unwise expenditure goes back to what Shapiro (2015) was asking about if de-extinction practical or not; will the benefits exceed the costs? The health concerns are that the newly revived species could bring harmful pathogens into the environment. In some ways, which contradicts the largest purpose of de-extinction, bringing back certain animals could harm the environment we now have by tempering with the current ecosystem and food web. Cohen’s (2014) last ethical concern is that humans want to bring back extinct animals for aesthetic purposes. As Cohen (2014) says, “it would be very cool to see a living wooly mammoth”. (pg. 175) Running with this idea, there could be issues of choosing specific species for aesthetic purposes instead of practical purposes and there could be the issue of placing these new de-extinct species on display as an attraction for people.
Although this is not always the case in society, science has the power over politics and economics when looking at de-extinction. This is because science and technology have the ability to create something so sublime that it can blind the public from thinking about how it will affect politics and U.S. economics. Not everyone is asking the same questions as Shapiro (2015) and Pimm (2013) such as “are we economically stable enough to perform these experiments?” and “how could this be politically harmful?”
This paper discusses the three methods of de-extinction: cloning, genetic engineering, and selective breeding. The different questions of de-extinction are addressed including practical and ethical questions. Some of the practical questions are “is this economically practical?” and “where would we put the animals if we brought them back?” and “what if this is politically harmful?”. The ethical questions consider the aesthetic motivations, “playing God”, ecological value, the utilitarian perspective, and the debt humans owe extinct species. These are all extremely important questions that need to be discussed by a variety of people including scientists, politicians, economists, and the public or else something will get missed. For this reason is why it is such a long process and such a large debate. Even all of these specific questions can be broken down into smaller questions and so on.
As the idea of de-extinction is growing, people are looking more critically at it than they were when they first heard of it or first saw the movie Jurassic Park. Some might have been completely turned off by the movie and would never want to participate in de-extinction while others may think our technology is better, our society is smarter, and we are developed enough to be able to make this work. All different fields of science must come to a consensus on de-extinction for it to go through. There will always be critics, but as long as there is a common ground or a common agreement between different sciences, then the sciences will overpower the critics, politics, and economics.
References
Cohen, S. (2014, August). The Ethics of De-extinction. NanoEthics. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274024025_The_Ethics_of_De-Extinction
Pimm, S. (2013, March 13). Opinion: The Case Against Species Revival. National Geographic News. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130312--deextinction-conservation-animals-science-extinction-biodiversity-habitat-environment/
Shapiro, B. (2015). How to Clone a Wooly Mammoth: The Science of De-extinction. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
University of Exeter. (2012, August 14). Study demonstrates that one extinction leads to another. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120814213500.htm
Comments