Is De-Extinction a Good Idea?

De-extinction—the process of reviving extinct species through scientific techniques like cloning and genetic engineering—has captured public imagination for decades. While once relegated to science fiction, advances in genomics and biotechnology have made the revival of long-lost species like the woolly mammoth or the Tasmanian tiger a tangible possibility. But is de-extinction a good idea? The answer has proponents and detractors on many sides as the opportunity presents both profound opportunities and significant risks.

Potential Benefits of De-Extinction

1. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Restoration  

One of the primary arguments for de-extinction is its potential to restore biodiversity. By reintroducing species that once played critical roles in ecosystems, scientists could help repair environments that have been degraded by human activities. For instance returning the thylacine to Tasmania, where it was once the apex predator of its ecosystem will help control the invasive rabbit and feral cats problems helping numerous other plant and animal species to survive.  According to Dr. George Church, a Harvard University geneticist ad co-founder of Colossal Biosciences who is leading a number of de-extinction projects, “De-extinction is not just about bringing back a single species; it’s about restoring entire ecosystems.”

2. Scientific Advancements

The techniques developed for de-extinction could have broader applications in conservation biology and medicine. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR, used in these projects, are already revolutionizing fields like agriculture and healthcare. Successfully reviving extinct species could accelerate progress in genetic research, offering new solutions to pressing global challenges.

3. Cultural and Educational Value

The revival of extinct species has already inspired awe and sparked interest in science and conservation programs with younger generations who are climate conscious and want to protect and regenerate environments. Very few people currently understand that nearly half of all the world’s species could go extinct by 2050 and there is a pressing need to change awareness and galvanize action. As Dr. Beth Shapiro, an evolutionary biologist and Chief Science Officer at Colossal notes, “De-extinct animals can serve as ambassadors for conservation, drawing attention to species currently at risk and emphasizing the urgency of protecting our planet’s biodiversity.”

Ethical and Ecological Risks

1. Disruption of Current Ecosystems – While de-extinct species might restore some ecosystems, their is concern that their reintroduction could also disrupt others. Modern ecosystems have evolved in the absence of these species, and their sudden return might create unanticipated competition for resources, leading to negative consequences for existing flora and fauna. However, there are also arguments against this. In fact, when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park the area saw unprecedented positive impacts. 
2. High Costs and Opportunity Costs

 De-extinction projects are expensive, requiring significant investments in research, technology, and infrastructure. Critics argue that these resources could be better spent on conserving endangered species or protecting critical habitats. With one million species currently at risk of extinction, according to a United Nations report, prioritizing the living might be more impactful. However, there is a counter-argument which is that the moonshot nature of this work has driven significant advancements including the development of a vaccine of EEHV (the leading killer of elephants in captivity) and the creation of elephant iPSCs (which were previously considered nearly impossible to derive). 

3. Ethical Dilemmas

Reviving extinct species raises complex ethical questions. For example, is it fair to bring animals back to life in a world vastly different from the one they originally inhabited? De-extinct species may suffer in environments that no longer support their needs, raising concerns about animal welfare. Furthermore, some fear that de-extinction could foster a sense of complacency about extinction, undermining conservation efforts by creating the illusion that lost species can always be “fixed.” And, yet, others believe it is the moral responsibility of humans to repair and restore that which they have destroyed. Noted bioethicist Alta Charo has shared “Restoring what has been lost transcends ideologies, political parties and even religions. It was a Republican, President Theodore Roosevelt, who began efforts to preserve our forests and public lands. And it was a Democrat, President Franklin Roosevelt, who created the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Soil Conservation Service for reforestation and restoration of natural lands.”

4. Potential for Misuse

The same technologies enabling de-extinction could be misused for purposes that harm rather than help. For instance, there’s a risk that private entities might commercialize de-extinct species or that governments could weaponize genetic technologies, raising significant biosecurity concerns. But, there are also others who argue that if we don’t risk the development of the science, we are creating a much more dangerous world for humans in general. The loss of 50% of the world’s animals means significant risk and damage to food, water and planetary safety. Furthermore, the World Economic Forum reports that half of the world’s GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature, indicating that biodiversity loss poses a substantial risk to global economic stability.

Balancing Innovation and Responsibility

The debate around de-extinction is emblematic of the broader tension between scientific innovation and ethical responsibility. Proponents argue that de-extinction represents a bold step forward in humanity’s ability to correct past wrongs and steward the planet. Critics, however, emphasize that the risks may outweigh the rewards, particularly in a world where current conservation challenges are already daunting.

Moving forward, the decision to pursue de-extinction will be guided by rigorous scientific assessments and inclusive public dialogue. Collaborative frameworks involving ecologists, ethicists, policymakers, and indigenous communities could help ensure that de-extinction projects align with broader environmental and social goals. Thoughtful, measured approaches—grounded in science and ethics—are essential to ensure that the pursuit of de-extinction serves the greater good.