De-extinction is a process whereby species that had initially died or undergone extinction are brought back to life. Although this field of biology has been held with considerable skepticism, advances in research and technology in certain areas including genetics, selective breeding, and reproductive cloning have made it increasingly possible. Also known as species revivalism, it involves the scientific recreation of an organism which was either a member or resembles a group of extinct species. Although genetic engineering has played a significant role in enabling such tremendous scientific procedures, several questions come with it. Critics have noted that it would be better to spend the efforts in the conservation of the existing species (Adams, 2017). Secondly, the ecological habitats available for these previously extinct animals are excessively limited to the process of de-extinction to become successful. De-extinction is, therefore, a risky experiment that threatens ecological carrying capacity and the overall sustainability of animals within their niches.
Literature Review
The principle behind the biological resurrection is to utilize the remaining genetic materials from extinct and using biotechnology means to recreate living organisms in the laboratory and subsequently utilize these species to establish the population of the formerly extinct species. Beth Shapiro, in her book, "How to Clone a Mammoth" reveals that the main aim of the biological resurrection process is not to achieve a complete extinct species but rather an animal that has both the genes of the depleted species and that of a living relative. The scientists, therefore, hope that these animals will resemble and behave like the extinct species. Recently, a group of scientist from Canada, New Zealand, and Australia assessed the effects of bringing back these depleted animals. The consensus was that de-extinction would implicate on the environmental conservation efforts that are already underway. In evaluating the impact of the biological resurrection on the environment, one of the animals that come into question is the woolly mammoth. Recent reports showed that researchers at Harvard University were on the verge of bringing back into existence the woolly mammoth.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, Adams (2017) noted that such a prospect has spelled an ecological dilemma among the scientist with opponents feeling that it is ecologically expensive to sustain a group of these species. According to the researchers, it will take similar cost as that used in sustaining the endangered Asian elephant. Research in conservation biology has primarily focused on the number of animals and the available land required to keep the species without significant intervention. It also seeks to assess how species will access food, habitat, and other resources without any significant pressure. The wholly mammoth for instance has remained extinct for almost 10,000 years (Brand, 2014). In assessing the potential environmental impact of these animals, it is important to appreciate its previous habitat. Some dwelled in a woolly tundra, savanna, sea level, and grassland amongst other places. According to Sherkow,& Greely,(2013), evidence has further shown that these animals were largely grazers with preference in herbs, grass, shrubs, and woody trees. Evolutionary, they can be related to Asian or African elephants. Currently, the world is facing a plethora of problems ranging from overpopulation and fragmentation, and therefore, the addition of these potentially destructive animals will only add woes to the conservation measures. Effort should be put in managing the endangered species like elephants and rhinos before experimenting on an experiment that is likely to cause more harm than good.
Another animal that is on the verge of the de-extinction process is the Tasmanian tiger. Australian Museum scientists reported that they are nearing resurrecting these animals through the means of cloning. Environmentalists and other scientists have had reservations with the process citing the potential impact of de-extinction on the environmental biodiversity. With the scientists at the museum regarding this as a breakthrough, it remains vital to raise fundamental questions regarding the ecology. Conservation is a process that requires not only time but also resources and energy. Most fundamentally, Robert et al. (2017) asserted that technology should be geared towards the preservation of the endangered species rather than creation the already depleted. Many feel that cloning or resurrection animals such as the Tasmanian will potentially distract people from the efforts to preserve wildlife. A Tasmanian tiger belongs to a similar family as the wolf. Genetic and fossil studies have also shown that it had massive land clearing rates. As a result, introducing a cloned form of the animal is a counterproductive and expensive process that will have unprecedented levels of destruction.
There is a group of scientist that argues that institutionalizing the resurrection of extinct animals has an ethical bearing that could further impact the environment. It offers a quick fix that removes the much-needed motivation to conserve animal species in the world (Cohen, 2014). The Tasmanian tiger is said to have existed over 3000 years ago in many parts of Australia. Anthropologists have also agreed that introducing the resurrected animals might not yield the expected result with regards to how it interacts with its surrounding. The environment today is essentially different from what one would expect in the 1850s (Diehm, 2015). As a result, introducing a Tasmania to these new conditions might significantly affect prey-predator relationships, an important factor in the ecology. Also, of essence is to assess the nature or kind of environment that the Tasmanian tiger lived.
Research has shown that this animal lived in wetlands, eucalyptus forests, and the grasslands found in continental Australia (Donlan, 2014). One of the reasons why the animal underwent depletion was the fact that it had massive competition from the dingoes. Some of its preys include rabbits, wallabies, goats, poultry, and sheep. Resurrecting this animal will offset the prey-predator relationship thereby affecting the balance. It will also stiffen competition with animals such as the wolf, hyenas, and any other omnivorous animal in the ecosystem. Most fundamentally, it is important to note that raising these animals will have a financial bearing that can further have a counterproductive impact on the environment. Funds are required to raise the populations in their entirety, move their respective ecological setting, and also monitor and maintain them (Jørgensen, 2013). As a result, this will need a financial toll that might require paying from the government or non-governmental authorities. Important to note is that these funds would have been used in protecting endangered species or improving the ecology for purposes of biodiversity.
Advocates of de-extinction primarily assert that it is a way of fixing some of the damages caused by humans many years ago. However, a research conducted by the Nature Ecology and Evolution has shown that the much sought environmental justice could come at a heavy cost thus affecting the animals that already need help. Most fundamentally, the resurrection of these species could result in a loss of biodiversity. Logistically, Diehm (2015) pointed out that the process of de-extinction is essentially untenable given that a large number of species are undergoing extinction every year. Ethicists have intimated that the resurrection of these animals causes a moral problem due to the inhumane treatment. For instance, to create surviving woolly mammoth, several female elephants will have to undergo impregnation to give birth to an offspring that survives a couple of days (Cohen, 2014). Therefore, it means that many animals will have to be sacrificed for this process to become successful. It means that for a single woolly mammoth to be produced, several elephants will have to lose their lives. Therefore, this turns out to be a counterproductive process that promises more harm than good (Shapiro, 2015).
Many scientists have tended to argue that the revival of dead animals can be equated to conservation. Although the DNA make-up preserves the genetic template of the animal, it fails to provide critical information regarding how these species will survive in the social, physical, and the psychological setting (Donlan, 2014). Fundamental to understand is that the reintroduction of the revived animals does not guarantee the reconstitution of the complex ecosystem that existed in the past. More so, some animals these animals such as the Tasmanian tiger have a predatory impact that will put a risk to the existing animals. Some activists have also claimed that the revived animals should be caged or put in a zoo (Shapiro, 2017). However, this beats logic as it would increasingly lead to questions regarding their importance in the process of biodiversity. Lastly, animals such as the Tasmanian tiger became extinct as a result of human activities. It, therefore, means that prioritizing de-extinction will lead to negative human activities against animals. It can, thus, increase the incidences of animal cruelty and poaching since they know that it will be increasingly possible to recreate another one.
In conclusion, the biological resurrection of animals is seen by many as a way of righting the wrongs that humans did many years ago. In some quarters, it is also regarded as a major scientific breakthrough that sets a brighter future for the animal life. However, trivializing this debate means that the critical position of the environment is significantly ignored. Using the examples of the woolly mammoth and the Tasmanian tiger, it remains crucial to appreciate that these animals pose a problem on the ecological well-being and diversity. Further, they possess a counterproductive effect, and their production could mean losing several animals existing today.
References
Adams, W. M. (2017). Geographies of conservation I: De-extinction and precision conservation. Progress in Human Geography, 41(4), 534-545.
Brand, S. T. E. W. A. R. T. (2014). The case for de-extinction: why we should bring back the woolly mammoth. Yale Environment, 360.
Cohen, S. (2014). The ethics of de-extinction. Nano Ethics, 8(2), 165-178.
Diehm, C. (2015). Should extinction be forever? Restitution, restoration, and reviving extinct species. Environmental Ethics, 37(2), 131-143.
Donlan, J. (2014). De-extinction in a crisis discipline. Frontiers of Biogeography, 6(1).
Jørgensen, D. (2013). Reintroduction and de-extinction. BioScience, 63(9), 719-720.
Robert, A., Thévenin, C., Princé, K., Sarrazin, F., & Clavel, J. (2017). De‐extinction and evolution. Functional Ecology, 31(5), 1021-1031.
Shapiro, B. (2015). How to clone a mammoth: The science of de-extinction. Princeton University Press.
Shapiro, B. (2017). Pathways to de‐extinction: How close can we get to resurrection of an extinct species? Functional Ecology, 31(5), 996-1002.
Sherkow, J. S., & Greely, H. T. (2013). What if extinction is not forever? Science, 340(6128), 32-33.
