Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Levi Collins
Professor Thompson
English 101
16 March 2017
With new advanced technology and microscopic machines operated by powerful biotics
and digital programing, scientists believe they can, in the future, recreate the past. Through
microscopic pieces of new equipment and machinery, a large proportion of the scientific world
believes that the bringing back of an extinct species is possible, and that it will happen in the
next half century. To some people, cloning seems like a possible solution to the extinction crisis
the world is facing, but this mode of de-extinction completely ignores the true problems behind
extinction. And will eventually fail its ultimate objective. Even if scientists can bring back a few
species from extinction, their efforts will be more than counterbalanced by the thousands of
A new, fancy, and appealing concept appears. Even the thought of man creating and
manipulating the course of extinction creates a sense of power, control, and safety. Therefore, it
is not surprising that this new technology has gained so much attention. Although scientists and
researchers broadcast their optimistic ideas, little has been accomplished toward truly bringing
this science to life. Friese and Marris state that de-extinction enthusiasts are making promises
scientists promote their work by talking about things that have not happened yet, and may
never happen Proponents and critics alike end up devoting a considerable amount of
Collins 2
time and effort to debating the consequences of a science that is yet to be realized (Friese
and Marris).
The concept of re-establishing an extinct species is not necessarily new and was
attempted in 2003. The bucardo was a relative of the wild goat and had gone completely extinct
in the year 2000 A.D. Before its complete extinction, scientists collected tissue samples from
below the ear of the last bucardo. In the second experiment, these DNA samples were used to
clone one hundred and fifty-four embryos. The embryos were put into forty-four female goat
recipients, but only one embryo birthed a bucardo. This poor animal died after a few painful
minutes while it was gasping for breath with deformed lungs. Although some considered this a
partial success, there is really nothing to be congratulated upon. If scientists were only able to
produce a deformed, sickly, weak animal with real DNA samples from a live subject, there is
little hope that they will be able to reconstruct the DNA of an extinct animal and bring it back to
life. This is the seemingly hopeless task that many scientists have taken up. As a beginning, an
institution named Revive and Restore has been established specifically to save species under the
threat of extinction.
For their first test subject, Revive and Restore chose the passenger-pigeon. This pigeon
once populated the east coast of the US in flocks of billions. According to the article, The
Mammoth Cometh, written by Nathaniel Rich, a single passenger-pigeon nesting ground once
occupied an area as large as 850 square miles, or 37 Manhattans. Rich went on to say that in a
few short decades, they were completely destroyed as a species. Many scientists chose this
species to begin their work of de-extinction because many of them remember with fondness the
spectacular bird. Bringing back the passenger pigeon is a much more difficult task than re-
establishing the bucardo species, and that attempt was a failure. Scientists would not have access
Collins 3
to the pigeons DNA, but would instead have to take DNA from a relative species and manipulate
the genetic material until it would produce a bird that would look and act like the passenger-
pigeon that went extinct. Rich described genetically manipulating the DNA sequences as the easy
part in comparison to transcribing the DNA into a living cell. Rich goes on to say that this
process is even harder due to the fact that bird cells are more difficult to culture outside of the
host. All in all, bringing back a species is even more difficult than it sounds, and is presently far
Even if scientists brought back many previously extinct species, against all odds, the
animals that would be brought back would face many new challenges to survival. These species
would lack immunity genes to resist modern diseases and pathogens. These animals would be
exposed to an environment filled with new diseases, predators, and habitats. There would be the
challenge of having to face the different climate, atmospheric conditions, and geological
topography. The air is more polluted than ever before, the ocean is suffering from acidification,
and development is destroying wildlife biomes and ecosystems. It is unlikely in the extreme that
a revived animal would be able to adapt to the new earth fast enough to survive. Doubtless, a
large proportion of them would become infected, injured, and eventually die causing all the
effort and money expended upon their de-extinction to become a waste. Introducing these
animals could also pose a threat to native species and the balance of the ecosystem. Whenever a
new species is introduced into an environment, there is a considerable chance that this species
could become an invasive species and outcompete native species. Many invasive species were
brought into ecosystems to perform a certain function and fill a niche. Although sometimes these
species can often get totally out of hand causing considerable harm to the ecosystem.
Collins 4
the funding, the danger, and the popular vision of extinction. Rich portrays the debate between
conservationists and cloning enthusiasts and focuses on the popular vision. According to Rich,
one of their debate topics was on how cloning would indirectly change the public focus away
from conservation of endangered species. People would be more inclined to think that extinction
is not something to be afraid of because scientists can always bring extinct species back, and
money that is now given to conservation will be redirected towards the new science of de-
extinction. The problem with this is that humanity may end up leaving endangered animals to go
Much of these misconceptions come from the way cloning is being presented. Scientists
are displaying de-extinction as a solution to the extinction crisis. However, cloning is not a
permanent solution, but a temporary solution that has a very insignificant amount of long-term
benefits. As David Shultz states in his article, but in spite of any danger, McCauley says his
biggest concern isnt a runaway genetic experiment wreaking havoc on a fragile ecosystem.
Honestly, the thing that scares me most is that the public absorbs the misimpression that
extinction is no longer scary, he says. That the mindset becomes: Deforest, no biggie, we can
reforest. If we drive something extinct, no biggie, we can de-extinct it. The negative
consequences of this thinking are obvious. The world already cuts down too many trees, uses too
many fossil fuels, and hunts too many exotic and rare animals. Thinking that the environment is
Suppose that against all odds scientists are able to keep these species from dying off, and
they help the ecosystem in the ways they were meant to. Somehow, the conservation effort is not
effected, and everything goes unbelievably well. The world would still be missing the point. De-
Collins 5
extinction focuses on the consequence of the real problem rather than the problem itself. The real
problem is that the world is in an ecological crisis, and it all comes down to the way humanity
treats the planet. CO2 emissions from cars, industries, and other sources build up in the
atmosphere causing a rise in temperature around the globe. Among the huge list of problems that
accrue from greenhouse gasses and global warming are melting glaciers and icecaps, ocean
acidification, coral bleaching, and the mass extinction of many species around the globe. These
problems are of much greater significance than bringing back a couple of lost species. This is a
problem that involves the possible extinction of millions of species world-wide, and maybe even
the future endangerment of humanity. If scientists put as much effort into trying to trying to
resurrect the environment, atmosphere, and oceans as they are trying to bring back dead animals
like the mammoth, they might be able to come up with solutions to stabilize and balance the
De-extinction seems like an appealing idea, a shot at redemption. The world of science is
making promises based on speculation, instead of solid evidence. No real victories have been
accomplished, for the bucardo experiment could hardly be termed a success. Even if cloning
worked and many extinct species were brought back, it would in no means lessen the real
problem of pollution. The way humans are treating the planet is causing the animals of todays
world to die at a rate that is earning the name of the sixth mass extinction. Species are dying
off at an extremely fast rate right now all over the world. While scientists and genetic engineers
spend their time, money, and energy toward bringing back an extinct species, thousands of
species are in need of their expert assistance and care. The science community believes that
bringing back extinct species will bring about ecological gain, but the gain of one species is
nothing in comparison to the thousands of species that are dying out on every continent of the
Collins 6
world. For every extinct animal scientists restore, thousands of todays species will take their
Work Cited
Friese, Carrie and Marris, Claire. "Making De-Extinction Mundane?" Plos Biology, vol. 12, no.
Rich, Nathaniel. "The Mammoth Cometh." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Mar.
Shultz, David. "Should We Bring Extinct Species Back from the Dead?" Science | AAAS. Science
Zimmer, Carl. "Woolly Thinking; Editing Ancient DNA Sequences into an Asian Elephant
Genome Might Produce a 'Mammoth.'." Wall Street Journal (Online), May 22 2015, US
url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1682473959?accountid=1157.