Our Pursuit of De-Extinction: Is it Environmentally Worth It?

 

Extinction is one of the inevitable stages of life on Earth, and our planet has seen countless species of animals and plants come and go. However, as humans have become more prominent in the world and our technology has developed, species extinctions have increased dramatically due to human causes such as unsustainable hunting, climate change and deforestation. At a 2013 TEDx conference about de-extinction, award-winning science author and journalist Carl Zimmer stated that species of animals and plants are dying out at a hundred or thousand times faster compared to the background extinction rate, and this number is only projected to increase when looking at the threats that these species face (Zimmer, 2013). One potential way we could reverse the damage we are causing to the planet’s biodiversity is de-extinction, which is the process of bringing back previously extinct species of plants and animals. But should we pursue de-extinction, specifically from an ecological perspective? There are arguments from both sides about the potential environmental benefits and risks of the various methods of de-extinction, making clear that any further advancements in this field of conservation biology should be taken with extreme caution.

A major method of de-extinction is species reintroduction, which according to a CNN article by writer Rebecca Cairns, is when “Conservation scientists use translocation and captive breeding to re-establish animal populations that have died out in the wild” (Cairns, 2021), such as when Przewalski’s horse was returned to the Mongolian steppe, or the reintroduction of grey wolves into Yellowstone National Park. This method only works if the species is extinct only in the wild, and they still exist in captivity. There are a multitude of potential ways this method of de-extinction could help conservation biologists, as the CNN article goes on to say that it “can help to restore degraded ecosystems, as well as increase population numbers” (Cairns, 2021). Whereas before conservation biologists had to race against time to find ways to preserve and increase the population of endangered species, now they have an alternative method to fall back one. A page published on the British Ecological Society, the largest ecological society in Europe, provides a different viewpoint, explaining that introducing de-extinction as a method of species conservation could divert funding from conservationists attempting to preserve endangered species, or unintentionally decrease public support for these current conservation efforts, as people might see endangered species preservation as less important if extinction was reversible (Iacona, 2020). Considering that scientists already have difficulty convincing the public and world leadership to back these conservation attempts, having their support being diminished due to the rise of de-extinction could be disastrous for currently endangered species.

There are a plethora of both potential benefits and risks de-extinction could have on the environment. the aforementioned 2013 TEDx event on de-extinction, conservation biologist Stanley Temple explained that “Species that have been extinct for a long time have left behind a community that’s moved on without them… the reintroduction of long extinct species into that community could in fact have essentially the same effect as an invasive species” (Temple, 2013). This is in direct contrast to Cairns’ article, with Temple detailing how de-extinction attempts could have the opposite effect that is intended if the ecosystem has changed since the species disappeared from that environment. Yet, in BBC Science Focus Magazine, science writer Helen Pilcher writes that “There are lots of good reasons to bring back extinct animals. All animals perform important roles in the ecosystems they live in, so when lost species are returned, so too are the ‘jobs’ they once performed. De-extinction provides a means to enhance biodiversity and help restore the health of ailing ecosystems” (Pilcher, 2020). In an age where biodiversity is plummeting before our very eyes, it is easy to see how from their perspective, conservation biologists would argue that we should take advantage of any potentially beneficial methods of conservation that we have. An example of a species introduction not going according to plan can be found in an article from reputable American magazine The Atlantic, published by senior editor Rebecca Rosen: “in the early 1900s, a shrub known as tamarisk was introduced to Utah to control river-bank erosion. Today it has taken over the habitats for native plants, overgrown acres and acres of beaches, and, with its deep root systems, is threatening the water supple of an already dry region” (Rosen, 2012). Initially intended to stabilize an ecosystem, this species took over an environment, bringing forth many detrimental effects to its surroundings.

Another potential method of de-extinction is cloning, which is a bit more genetically complex compared to species reintroduction, as it requires intricate process involving a species’ DNA. According to an article by molecular biologist Beth Shapiro published in the British Ecological Society (BES), “cloning is the process of taking preserved cells and attempting to copy them to create an identical organism by inserting the embryo into a surrogate host, usually an animal closely related to the extinct species” (Shapiro, 2015). Unlike species reintroduction, cloning allows scientists to bring back animals that are completely extinct if they have living cells from the animal. However, like species reintroduction, cloning with the purpose of de-extinction can have both positive and negative environmental impacts. The environment risks are very similar to those of species reintroduction, as the head of Italian Wildlife Service ISPRA Piero Genovesi and professor of environmental science at the University of Tennessee Daniel Simberloff write, “Risks… parallel those for… re-introducing locally extinct species and include the possibility that the proxy becomes invasive and affects native species, communities, or ecosystems through predation, competition, browsing, hybridisation, facilitation of spread of diseases” (Genovesi and Simberloff, 2020). Thus, the potential negative environmental effects seem to be universal among different methods of de-extinction. The BES article by Beth Shapiro goes on to explore to potential ecological benefits of cloning, commenting that de-extinction allows for the return of lost genetic diversity, and could also be an important new tool for preserving biodiversity that is not yet extinct (Shapiro, 2015). Conservation biologists seem to support the idea of de-extinction through cloning or genetic modification, even though they most likely wouldn’t directly be involved in the process of recreating the extinct species. Opposingly, there are concerns about the potential consequences of de-extinction from the public. From a paper published in the 2019 issue of the Society for Conservation Biology, “a survey of 1600 U.S. adult respondents on average perceived more risk than benefit in using [de-extinction]. Over 70% agreed that gene editing in wildlife could be “easily used for the wrong purposes” (Kohl, 2019). This provides an important alternative perspective on the topic, because although the general public does not have as much expertise in the field compared to genetic researchers or conservation biologists, they deserve a say in the matter as any major changes to biodiversity in the environment will ultimately affect the world that they live in.

As the previously cited Helen Pilcher writes, “To reverse extinction would undoubtedly be a huge moment for the fields of biology and conservation, and a feat that could motivate future generations of scientists and wildlife defenders” (Pilcher, 2020). Alternatively, the Atlantic senior editor Rebecca Rosen suggests that “perhaps before we get too fancy with reintroducing extinct species into our continuing ecological disaster, we should focus our efforts on protecting the ones we have and the climate and habitats that harbor them” (Rosen, 2012). There are numerous viable arguments for both sides of the de-extinction debate, although what I believe both sides can agree on is that if we continue to pursue de-extinction on a larger scale, we must take extreme caution in our approach, as the equilibrium of our planet’s ecosystems is volatile to say the least, and the outcome of our efforts to preserve Earth’s biodiversity will surely be crucial in the future survival of species all around the world.