Explore UAB

Colleges & Schools

Blaze a Brighter Future
Blaze a Brighter Future
Inquiro UAB's Undergraduate Research Journal
Inquiro Vol 13 2024-2025 UAB undrgraduate research journal - background image of people watching a light show featuring many straight red laser-like lines.

Inquiro Volume 13

Examining the Technologies, Potential Consequences, and Moral Permissibility of De-Extinction

Anushka Patel

UAB

The Melomys rubicola or Bramble Cay mosaic-tailed rat was a rodent native to a tiny island, Bramble Cay, in the Great Barrier Reef. The species was distinguished by the mosaic pattern of scales located on its tail and was depended on the vegetation of the island for food and shelter (IFAW, 2023). On the other hand, the Incilius periglenes or golden toad was a species indigenous to Monteverde, Costa Rica. Even with its bright orange hue, the toad could live up to ten years in the wild, but it relied heavily on the regularity of the rain to reproduce and continue to populate the next generation of its species (IFAW, 2023). Although distinct, both of these creatures share a common fate: extinction. These two species are linked due to the impact of climate change.

Climate change is defined as the long-term shift in temperatures and weather patterns (United Nations). The Bramble Cay rat’s habitat was destroyed by rising sea levels, and the golden toad was affected through the irregularity of rain patterns halting the appropriate reproduction of the species (IFAW, 2023). Although natural forces such as solar activity or volcanic eruptions can influence the climate, human behavior has become the primary driver of climate change and its effect on the environment. Acknowledging this potential responsibility, some researchers have concluded that due to the role humans have played in extinction of species that there is a responsibility to restore these creatures into current day civilization. Inherently, this idea is de-extinction. De-extinction is the process of creating an organism that is, or closely resembles, an extinct species. Although in theory and with continued technological advancements in cloning, researchers find themselves drawn to a path of exploration to resurrect these animals. The intrinsic question remains if humans should consider de-extinction and the moral implications of these choices and decisions.

Even though humans influenced the extinction of these animals, de-extinction is not a morally permissible manner to consider resurrecting these species. This paper will demonstrate this claim by analyzing technological developments and ethical concerns through the lens of relevance of animal welfare, human hubris, and restorative justice.

Before evaluating the ethical implications, it is necessary to examine the technological feasibility of de-extinction. De-extinction may involve either directly reviving a species or engineering a close genetic relative. Three primary methods under consideration are cross-species cloning, back-breeding, and genetic engineering.

Cloning has been widely discussed as a method for reviving organisms through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT involves transferring the nucleus of a somatic cell into the cytoplasm of an enucleated egg (Stocum, 2023). Then, the egg is developed into the blastocyst stage, which allows the creation of embryonic stem cells from the inner cell mass (Stocum, 2023). Dolly the Sheep was the first mammal cloned using SCNT. Dolly was created from a mammary gland cell of a Finn Dorset sheep (National Museums Scotland). Dolly was a major step into the utilization of cloning for continued growth and signified a potential technological pathway viable for de-extinction. For example, the woolly mammoths went extinct 10,000 years ago, but there are many preserved bones from which cells could be extracted (Odenbaugh, 2023). Arguably, for a similar species, the woolly mammoth could be brought back from the Asian elephant cells due to their close relatedness (Odenbaugh, 2023). However, in Dolly’s case, she developed arthritis and later tumors were identified to be growing in the thorax, triggering discourse on the length of survival for cloned animals (National Museums Scotland). Dolly passed at the age of six illustrating both the potential and risks of cloning technology.

Back-breeding is one of the more traditional techniques and is used to replicate characteristics of extinct species using selective breeding. In the 1980s, this process was used to reestablish traits of the auroch, an extinct ancestor of modern cattle, by two German scientists (Shapiro, 2017). The last known auroch died in 1627 in Poland. To “bring back” these traits, the Heck cattle breed was chosen by scientists due to its close resemblance to the auroch as well as specific cattle that had large body size, horns, and aggressive tendencies (Odenbaugh, 2023). The researchers were able to back-breed a group of 32 cattle to reestablish traits. However, the key consideration with this technique is that back-breeding cannot truly resurrect an extinct species, but may recreate certain traits in living organisms.

Lastly, genetic engineering is another method increasingly explored for de-extinction. Researchers reconstruct an extinct species’ genome to then identify which specific parts of the genome correlate to certain phenotypes. With this edited genome, a cell is used to create a living organism combining SCNT as well. Currently, researchers at “Revive & Restore”, a company which seeks to enhance biodiversity through genetics-based technologies, are engaged in a project to resurrect passenger pigeons (Revive & Restore). Passenger pigeons were declared extinct in 1914, and a driving force in their extinction was human hunting with historical reports in the late 1800s claiming hunters to have killed 50,000 pigeons a day for 5 months straight (Odenbaugh, 2023). The researchers have already envisioned this de-extinction process which plans to use genetic engineering to create a new generation of pigeons and with plans to reintroduce them into their former habitat.

With these technologies and the desire of researchers and companies to pursue these projects, de-extinction proceeds further into reality. However, the key question is if researchers should even resurrect a species. This leads to the thought process surrounding supposed human responsibility to restore the biodiversity of species on the planet outweighing the concerns of morality. In this case, it seems clear that the moral considerations and overall negative implications of releasing resurrected species back into the environment far outweigh the potential restorative justice that could be achieved.

One of the largest concerns with de-extinction is animal welfare. Through different technological processes, the welfare-based issues span not only the extinct creatures, but also the other related species used in the process and other animals affected with eventual reintegration in the natural habitat. The technological processes as of now have not been able to establish a universally accepted ethical guideline, which inherently leads to concerns of the varying levels of harm to animals utilized in these experiments (Browning, 2018). For example, the bucardo or the Pyrenean ibex, a type of mountain goat species, was named extinct in 2000, but before the last living bucardo, “Celia,” passed, scientists took a variety of cell samples with the hope of resurrection (McKenna, 2017). By 2003, scientists utilized a similar technique to the cloning of Dolly the sheep and had implanted 57 embryos but only 7 hybrids became pregnant. As they continued, 6 of those hybrids miscarried and only 1 pregnancy was a success (McKenna, 2017). However, the born female cloned bucardo had a lung defect, so it died within 10 minutes of its birth (McKenna, 2017). The bucardo illustrates the difficulty and harm that comes to a significant amount of animals in a de-extinction experiment. Additionally, de-extinction’s focus is to eventually establish a population or species to release into the wild. Currently, to release animals from captivity back into the wild, there are an established set of guidelines for reintroduction of endangered species created by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). These guidelines highlight several benchmarks such as the background research into habitat requirements as well identification of prior lessons learned (Jørgensen, 2013). However, with de-extinction, scientists have no prior information to follow these guidelines posing a very low chance of success with reintroduction of resurrected species (Browning, 2018). The bucardo never could have reached the viability to release back into the wild as it died shortly after birth. Moreover, past history provides a clear picture into the high rate of failures citing examples of animals released into the wild who suffer and die due to their lack of preparatory training (Browning, 2018). For example, understanding how animals interact with their environment, hunt for food, and create shelter all play a role into releasing animals with the proper behavioral repertoire. With creatures from de-extinction projects such as the passenger pigeons and woolly mammoths, their behavioral complexity and inability to predict their interactions with other species and the environment puts them at high risk to be unable to integrate. Without a way to predict these interactions currently, it seems that de-extinction is unable to protect the welfare of both resurrected and existing species.

Restorative justice is a framework that addresses harm by holding responsible parties accountable (Zeher, 2002). Researchers and proponents of de-extinction are claiming restorative justice highlights the need to fund projects dedicated to resurrecting extinct species since humans are responsible for species loss and are therefore morally obligated to act as restitution. However, restorative justice plays a role when those that were negatively influenced receive justice and those that caused the harm are alive to make amends (Odenbaugh, 2023). In this case, the specific species and animals that were affected are no longer present as well as the humans who directly impacted these creatures. For example, passenger pigeons were highly impacted due to the hunting by humans in the 1800s. Under the framework of restorative justice, the humans of that time would be held responsible for their negative impact on passenger pigeons (Odenbaugh, 2023). Rather than take this framework to justify de-extinction, humans should highlight the necessity of conservation and to act ethically by protecting living species, even though past harms cannot be undone. Humans should allocate the resources to conserve and restore the current biodiversity, so that the humans of today are not implicated in the future for any restorative justice arguments.

Even if the argument of restorative justice was used to support de-extinction, the caveat of this argument is that de-extinction would negatively impact the current ecosystem. By releasing a de-extinction creation back into its previous habitat, the new creature could alter the social structure and disrupt the food chain of that environment. Additionally, some might make the argument that only keystone species should be resurrected due to their importance in their ecosystem. Keystone species are species that help to define an ecosystem, and without them, the ecosystem could look dramatically different (National Geographic). Keystone species have been utilized to rebalance populations and ecosystem diversity in the past. For example, wolves were repopulated into Yellowstone National Park which helped restore balance by managing deer populations and enabling plant regrowth (Greater Yellowstone Coalition, 2024). This success story highlights the value of keystone species and their role in the ecology of an area. However, in terms of reinvigorating any keystone species from extinction, it could lead to ecological uncertainties as mentioned earlier in terms of reinviting dangerous changes in the ecosystem again even though it may be done with pure intentions. Therefore, humans should focus their efforts on conservatory actions as well as building policies which protect endangered animals.

De-extinction mirrors the human spirit’s inability to accept moral and technological limits. As a species, humans are often focused on crossing the boundaries to achieve and establish new techniques and ideas for the growth of civilization (Minteer, 2014). However, this quality pushes against ethical and moral obligations. Jurassic Park, a 1993 film, describes a group of scientists who resurrect dinosaurs from prehistoric DNA. Even though the facility is considered to be safe, the once extinct dinosaurs break free. Dr. Malcom, a mathematician invited to view the park, famously states, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should” (Spielberg, 1993). The quote captures the hubris of these scientists to bring back these creatures without considering the moral implications as well as the practical implications. Connecting this to the de-extinction research currently, scientists must be cognizant of their actions and engage in ethical deliberation to understand if it will cause unnecessary harm on both the resurrected creatures, current day creatures, and the environment.

In conclusion, de-extinction is not morally permissible and does not outweigh the high risks to the resurrected species or the current natural environment to allow this line of experimentation to occur. Without proper guidelines and continued development of technology to ensure animal welfare and safety, resurrecting extinct species is not a viable option to combat this concern. Rather, humans should be focusing their time on conservation as the more feasible and more ethically sound path to decrease more animals from going extinct due to human actions and behaviors.

Works Cited