# Recreating the wild: De-extinction, technology



## Cowboy_Ken (Aug 4, 2017)

Recreating the wild: De-extinction, technology, and the ethics of conservation
04 Aug 2017, 10:18 AM

Is extinction forever? Efforts are under way to use gene editing and other tools of biotechnology to "recreate" extinct species such as the woolly mammoth and the passenger pigeon. Could such "de-extinction" initiatives aid conservation by reviving species lost to habitat destruction and climate change? Or are they more likely to hinder conservation? What should the guiding ideals of conservation be in a new age of biotechnology? These are some of the questions addressed in "Recreating the Wild: De-extinction, Technology, and the Ethics of Conservation," a new special report of the Hastings Center Report.

The report was edited by Gregory Kaebnick, a Hastings Center research scholar and editor of the Hastings Center Report, and Bruce Jennings, a senior advisor at the Center. The report grew out of a research project on de-extinction, led by Kaebnick and Jennings, that was part of a two-year collaboration of The Hastings Center and the Center for Humans and Nature, where Jennings is a senior scholar.

In their introduction, Kaebnick and Jennings observe that "we are living in what is widely considered the sixth major extinction," caused mainly by human activity. New biotechnology appears to offer the promise that "human ingenuity, a contributing factor in the extinction crisis, might achieve ... 'de-extinction' -- in at least some cases, and with sometimes significant qualifications about whether the original species had been 'recreated' and whether it could resume its original place in the environment."

Major questions addressed in the special report include the following:

Is true de-extinction possible?

Advances in biology have revealed the ways the environment influences species' genomes. Even if scientists could produce creatures with DNA identical to that of extinct species, different environmental pressures would alter their genomes in novel ways, raising the possibility that those creatures would differ from the extinct species. "Species are entangled with other species, the land, and ecological events and processes," writes Ronald Sandler, director of the Ethics Institute at Northwestern University. "If scientists merely create organisms genetically similar to previously existing species, neither the species nor its relationships are regenerated." Still, some experts think that creating organisms that are similar to extinct species might have ecological benefits.

Does de-extinction support or undermine the goals of conservation?

Many scientists believe that although the maintenance of biodiversity benefits ecosystems, changes to the environment could make the reintroduction of extinct species difficult -- possibly even ecologically disruptive. Curt Meine, a senior fellow with the Center for Humans and Nature and the Aldo Leopold Foundation, writes that species reintroduction does not take place in a "social or ecological vacuum" and that the interactions of a species with its physical and social environment are critical for its success.

Several commentators in the report raise the concern that the notion that extinct species might be "brought back" could weaken efforts to prevent extinctions. "By proposing that we can revive species through modern technology, we give the impression that species are 'throwaway' items," write Robert DeSalle, a curator at the American Museum of Natural History's Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics, and George Amato, director of the conservation genomics program at the institute. And Phil Seddon, chair of a recent International Union for Conservation of Nature task force that issued guidelines for attempting de-extinction, argues that, although conservationists need to be willing to use new biotechnologies for conservation goals, de-extinction may not be the best place to start.

What ideals should guide conservation as de-extinction and other biotechnological strategies become available?

Several essayists ask whether de-extinction goes too far in advancing human activity in the natural world. Christopher Preston, an ethicist at the University of Montana, argues that de-extinction is different from many other kinds of human activities because it tries to alter the deep structure of nature. Gregory Kaebnick asks whether de-extinction challenges the "gardening ethic" that some environmentalists have recently called for. He argues that the technologies show the need to think more carefully about what "good gardening" really means for a conservationist. In the version of gardening he defends, we should "think of nature as a place, a community -- a threatened homeland," Kaebnick advises. "We live in it and dominate it, but we depend on it and cherish it. We should safeguard it."

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by The Hastings Center

. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference:

Gregory E. Kaebnick, Bruce Jennings. De-extinction and Conservation. Hastings Center Report, 2017; 47: S2 DOI: 10.1002/hast.744


----------



## Tidgy's Dad (Aug 4, 2017)

Yes, this is a very serious debate at the moment.
Do we reintroduce animals that are not extinct back into areas where they used to exist ?
Wolves in the US, beavers in the UK, Moroccan lions to Morocco, etc.
And sooner or later someone is going to bring back extinct species, it's just a matter of time.
But is it ethical or possible to bring back an animal that is extinct because its time had come, like the woolly mammoth or only some of the animals that have been exterminated by man, before their time, like the passenger pigeon ?
And as for the worry that it may hinder conservation if people think there's a quick fix to further extinctions, well most of the large cats, rhinos, great apes etc, are liable to be found only in zoos or semi-artificial reserves or safari parks anyway in fifty years time, so why not a mammoth in an artificially created environment ?
I remember when I first saw Jurassic Park, and they first see the dinos, ok still not entirely correct reconstructions but better than before and the dream! I cried.
Now we're no where near Jurassic Park, perhaps a little bit closer as we now know birds are dinosaurs and so the DNA matches will be closer than we thought, but Pleistocene Park may be only decades away.
It's science.
If someone can do it, it will be done.


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Aug 4, 2017)

Tidgy's Dad said:


> It's science.
> If someone can do it, it will be done.


We are close enough at this stage with intact mammoth hair containing almost complete strands of DNA that can be spliced with elephant DNA to make it possible. Currently this planet lacks the needed open area for a self sustained population of mammoth to be though. But like you've pointed out regarding the carrier pigeon, what about Galapagos tortoises we've made extinct? A theme park for mammoths would be ethnically wrong. Way cool, but wrong just the same. But critters we are actively driving to extinction such as Lonesome George maybe not so wrong after all. That said, once common and possible, people may be less driven to protect the few remaining we have now.


----------



## Tidgy's Dad (Aug 4, 2017)

Cowboy_Ken said:


> We are close enough at this stage with intact mammoth hair containing almost complete strands of DNA that can be spliced with elephant DNA to make it possible. Currently this planet lacks the needed open area for a self sustained population of mammoth to be though. But like you've pointed out regarding the carrier pigeon, what about Galapagos tortoises we've made extinct? A theme park for mammoths would be ethnically wrong. Way cool, but wrong just the same. But critters we are actively driving to extinction such as Lonesome George maybe not so wrong after all. That said, once common and possible, people may be less driven to protect the few remaining we have now.


The trouble is where's the money come from ?
Bringing back various species of butterfly, insect, orchid, even birds and tortoises is going to be possible very, very soon in the cases where they have a very close living relative, but where's the money in it and most people won't care. It all comes down to money. The first one, whatever it may be, will create huge international headlines but after a while there won't be the cash or the interest. 
But if you could create Pleistocene Park with mastodons, dire wolves, giant sloths and rather big armadillos you would make a fortune. 
Not sure ethics would come into it, scientists want money, too.


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Aug 4, 2017)

Tidgy's Dad said:


> scientists want money, too.


So do I, so do I…


----------



## Tidgy's Dad (Aug 4, 2017)

It could get horrifying. 
How much would someone pay to be the first hunter to get a license and go out and 'bag' a mammoth ?


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Aug 4, 2017)

Good point. But that would be hunting the rarest of the rare and it might be very illegal. It could be fun to watch with a shoulder cam on the hunter, like the police wear, if there are dire wolves roaming around hungry at the same time.


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Aug 8, 2017)

Tidgy's Dad said:


> It could get horrifying.


Or very entertaining.


----------



## Kapidolo Farms (Aug 9, 2017)

There are a few other concepts that are in a close relationship with the overall idea of de-extinction. Much of it is interesting. It seems as soon as someone images what they can do someone will do it. I see no reason to debate 'what-if' but more 'how best'.

One of the similar concepts is 're-wilding' areas with homologous animals. One such action is going on in Hawaii now where male sulcatas are being used to manage foliage in the absence of a goose. Another is the placement of 'some' giant tortoise on one the islands in the Galapagos group to maintain habitat for other species whose niche was maintained by tortoises (finches) and are now facing extinction because the tortoises were all removed. 

On a grander scale (I'll stick with tortoise examples) is re-introducing Bolson's tortoise to as far north as Oklahoma, a part of their former range.

I'm all for it, scientists want money, but also fame, and the person who re-creates a species will be forever famous (more or less forever). I for one want the horned tortoises of Australia and the Lord Howe Islands etc. re-created. Looking for fossil nests was one thesis topic I considered, sorta close to home for me in terms of interest.


----------



## Grandpa Turtle 144 (Aug 9, 2017)

The big question is who decides what we bring back and don't? Birds , animals,Reptiles or maybe bacteria?


----------



## Kapidolo Farms (Aug 9, 2017)

Grandpa Turtle 144 said:


> The big question is who decides what we bring back and don't? Birds , animals,Reptiles or maybe bacteria?


I think the short answer is whoever does the work. Not legal in your country, find a country it is legal in.


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Aug 9, 2017)

Grandpa Turtle 144 said:


> The big question is who decides what we bring back and don't? Birds , animals,Reptiles or maybe bacteria?


I say we bring back deadly viruses!!!


----------



## Tidgy's Dad (Aug 10, 2017)

Cowboy_Ken said:


> I say we bring back deadly viruses!!!


And Genghis Khan !


----------



## Bambam1989 (Aug 18, 2017)

For those of you who like to read, the fictional story titled "Sector C" by Phoenix Sullivan is worth checking out. It hits very close to this discussion.


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Aug 18, 2017)

Bambam1989 said:


> For those of you who like to read,


Thank you very much. I do like to, (currently reading 2 books) and I just picked it up for .99¢ to add to my e-reader. It will be my next read. Have you read "Written in Stone" yet? A great read dealing with time travel and dinosaurs. Two of my favorites in one book…can it get much better than that?


----------



## Bambam1989 (Aug 19, 2017)

Cowboy_Ken said:


> Thank you very much. I do like to, (currently reading 2 books) and I just picked it up for .99¢ to add to my e-reader. It will be my next read. Have you read "Written in Stone" yet? A great read dealing with time travel and dinosaurs. Two of my favorites in one book…can it get much better than that?


Haven't read that one but I'm looking it up right now... YAY BOOKS! Almost as great as critters


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Aug 20, 2017)

Bambam1989 said:


> YAY BOOKS!


Here is an email service I'm a member of. You pick your favorite book category and each day you get an email which contains 5-10 books to download from free to $1.99. I look forward to that email every morning. 

http://landers.bookbub.com/covers/?...i5AjkKrZKY802iZTjFKMzTwCJOgFxb7hoCCT4QAvD_BwE


----------



## Clamhandsmcgee (Aug 20, 2017)

That would be cool if they figure it out. I would be ok if they did this for recent spiecies that go extinct. Especially if humans caused the extinction. I've seen all the Jurassic Park movies, so let's not make an amusement park filled with large carnivorous dinosaurs. That's all I ask!


----------



## Cowboy_Ken (Aug 20, 2017)

Bambam1989 said:


> Haven't read that one but I'm looking it up right now... YAY BOOKS! Almost as great as critters


Oops! Wow my face is red. This is my number 1 freebie or cheap daily email alert. 
https://www.goodreads.com/
You taylor pick your interests in books and your daily results are tailored just for you. Then as your downloads are regular, the choices become even closer to your taste. Have fun.


----------



## William Lee Kohler (Aug 22, 2017)

Tidgy's Dad said:


> The trouble is where's the money come from ?
> Bringing back various species of butterfly, insect, orchid, even birds and tortoises is going to be possible very, very soon in the cases where they have a very close living relative, but where's the money in it and most people won't care. It all comes down to money. The first one, whatever it may be, will create huge international headlines but after a while there won't be the cash or the interest.
> But if you could create Pleistocene Park with mastodons, dire wolves, giant sloths and rather big armadillos you would make a fortune.
> Not sure ethics would come into it, scientists want money, too.



As for the Galapagos species it(money/contributions)comes from private donations of folks like us and from at least one european prince


----------

