Should We Bring Extinct Species Back to Life?
Reflection on Rise of the Necrofauna by Britt Wray
Wray, Britt. Rise of the Necrofauna: The Science, Ethics, and Risks of De-Extinction. Greystone Books. Kindle Edition.
Rise of the Necrofauna explores the science behind de-extinction, which is the attempt to recreate extinct species. The book looks at the science, tools, and history behind de-extinction, the scientists, historians, and commentators involved, and the detractors and opponents of de-extinction. I first learned about this book through Britt Wray’s interview on the Geek’s Guide to the Galaxy podcast. This essay is adapted from an “Ethics Beyond the Classroom” assignment that I did for my Animal Communication class in my last semester of graduate school, Spring 2019. In addition to writing about the book and its connections to ethics, I also gave a presentation to the class about the book. Reading this book, presenting about it, and writing this essay were all very interesting.
The book contains a foreword, an introduction, and 9 chapters. The first chapter, “How is De-Extinction Done,” looks at the various techniques that can be used to recreate an extinct animal. These techniques include: selective breeding, back breeding, cloning, genetic engineering (including the use of gene editing and CRISPR), and creating synthetic genomes (which is not currently practical). The second chapter, “Why is de-extinction important?”, explains the motivations behind de-extinction projects. These motivations include moral responsibility, ecosystem recovery, scientific research, profit, and because it’s cool. Chapter 3, “What Species are Good Contenders, and Why?” explores which species could be viably recreated. It also explores the biases involved in which species get to be de-extincted, and how that could influence the ecosystems these creatures would be re-introduced into. Societal acceptance and feelings towards certain animals also play a large role.
Chapters 4 & 5 look at specific cases of de-extinction projects: Chapter 4, the Woolly Mammoth, and Chapter 5, the Passenger Pigeon. Chapter 6, “How Might We Regulate This New Wilderness?” looks at the legal aspect of de-extinction including legislation, patenting, and international relations. The seventh chapter, “Can De-Extinction Save Species on the Brink?” explores how de-extinction science could help endangered species, such as increasing genetic diversity in endangered species and creating gene drives. The eighth and final chapter, “Is Some Knowledge Too Dangerous?” looks de-extinction from a philosophical perspective. Wray argues that society thinks of de-extinction through a paradigm of created by Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, a fear of dangerous knowledge and science. She interviews two philosophers, Gregory Kaebnick and Thomas van Dooren. The former discusses the morality around de-extinction, while the later discusses grief, mourning, and extinction.
Some opponents of de-extinction, such as Stuart Pimm, argue that Dr. Wray (who now holds a PhD in science communication) writing this book is harmful because it demystifies de-extinction and desensitizes people to it. This makes it more likely for people to develop and invest in de-extinction, which takes attention and money away from conservation of endangered species. Regardless of my opinion on de-extinction, I disagree that we should not talk about it. Even if just a cool thought experiment, people should have access to knowledge. I think more knowledge, rather than less, empowers people to make informed and ethical decisions. Also, since an inaccurate picture of what de-extinction looks like, the Jurassic Park franchise, exists, I believe that having accounts of what actual de-extinction science would look like is important. People approaching de-extinction have ideas about de-extinction influenced by Jurassic Park. A good example of this from the book is when a wealthy business once approached de-extinction scientist Hendrik Poinar with an offer to join his venture to bring the Woolly Mammoth back to life and create a park for tourists to come see them. Having more information about de-extinction, both the actual science and the arguments for it (besides profit and it being cool) can change the public perception about what de-extinction is and what it can be for. Having arguments both for and against de-extinction can help people make formed opinions and decisions.
This book left me with a lot of questions. One of the first ones is a simple, rather binary question: should we do de-extinction, or not? However, this question does not show how many other questions and decisions we have to consider when thinking about de-extinction. The following is a non-exhaustive list of questions that come up when I start to pick apart the question “should we do de-extinction”:
● Is de-extinction scientifically possible?
● What are the benefits of re-creating an extinct animal? What are the negatives?
● Who chooses what species gets to be de-extinction?
● Which area and ecosystem would an unextinct animal be introduced into?
● What are the environmental impacts will unextinct animals have - positive and negative?
● Should government money be used to fund de-extinction?
● Should government resources be used to support reintroduced de-extinct populations?
● What kind of scale should we do de-extinction on - a few species, or many species?
● How do we regulate de-extinct species?
● Should they be classified as an endangered species?
● Should they be considered an invasive species? In what area?
● Is it moral to de-extinct an animal? Whose morality or ethics are we using?
These are just some of the questions that the book raises. One interesting argument presented is the idea that Woolly Mammoths could be used to fight climate change. For background, there are large amounts of methane and carbon trapped under the permafrost in the arctic. If this permafrost thaws rapidly due to rising planet temperatures, this methane and carbon would be released in the atmosphere, doubling the current level of greenhouse gasses. Scientists proposing to de-extinct the woolly mammoth argue that re-introducing the woolly mammoth could help shape the ecosystem in the arctic back to the way it was during the Pleistocene, which would help keep the permafrost cooler. In Russia, Sergey Zimov and his son Nikita have been doing rewilding experiments on reshaping the ecosystem of their “Pleistocene Park,” which is currently floodplain and boreal forest, back into the grassland that the Mammoth Steppe of Siberia and North America once was. They use extant megafauna such as horses, wapiti, muskox, reindeer, and bison, which trample darker, light absorbing plants and punch holes in the snow, creating a ventilation system to cool down the permafrost. These animals are recreating the role of the woolly mammoth during the Pleistocene, do scientists working on de-extincting the woolly mammoth have taken this idea and used it as a justification for working on the de-extinction. I think that it is necessary for scientists to think about unextinct animals in an ecological context rather than just doing it because it’s cool, so this is a good idea. However, at the rate that climate change is happening, a herd of unextinct mammoths may not develop in time to stop the effects. Efforts like Pleistocene Park, using extant animals, are good vanguards in this effort, and the unextinct mammoths could come in as reinforcements throughout the next couple of decades. Considering all the methane trapped under the permafrost, keeping it from escaping all at once is critical.
This leads to the question of what my personal opinion is on de-extinction. I think we should develop the science and do some projects, and most of all, keep talking and discussing about it. Some of the detractors of de-extinction think that even writing or talking about it makes it dangerous because it makes people more used to the idea, and more inclined to do it. That may be true, but rather than keeping it a secret, I think we should be talking about it, learning about the science, and discussing the ethics, benefits, and pitfalls. Another argument made is that money used to support de-extinction projects should be going to supporting endangered species. I think there is some truth to that, but I think that blaming de-extinction projects for taking money away from conservation is ignoring that the real enemies of conservation are far right politicians, fossil fuel companies, and other industries, rather than de-extinctionists. I think a quote from the book about the tension between saving endangered species using technology and de-extinction highlights how ridiculous some of these arguments are (in my opinion):
I wonder if there will be any public backlash against saving species with things like gene editing and stem cells as these technologies become increasingly applied. What will happen when the three remaining northern white rhinos die? Will people feel the same about using biotechnology to recreate the rhinos after they’re all dead as they felt about using biotechnology to prevent their extinction up until the moment before the last ones expired? In other words, is it somehow more reasonable to be opposed to the idea of de-extinction of the northern white rhino after Sudan, Najin, and Fatu die than to oppose the northern white rhino’s restoration now while those three are still with us, even though the same types of advanced biotechnologies are used in both scenarios? What are the material, ethical, and environmental distinctions here between de-extinction and genetic rescue of an endangered species, other than the existence of a few remaining individuals hanging on for dear life?
(Bolding added by me)
In conclusion, I think we should investigate and pursue projects in de-extinction. Using the precautionary principle is of utmost importance, which organizations like Revise & Restore are promoting by having public input and discussions about de-extinction. In the words of the clichéd phrase, knowledge is power. However, let’s not make a zoo for unextinct animals. Let’s focus on rewilding them so that they can fulfill needed ecological roles and benefit environments.