Advances in molecular biology are allowing scientists to “challenge extinction” by creating a new field of biology called “de-extinction;” but should we bring extinct species back to life?
In 1914, the last passenger pigeon died and was shipped to the Smithsonian Institution for preservation. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, passenger pigeons were the most numerous of all birds in the U.S., numbering in the tens of millions, but hunting and habitat destruction decimated the species, leading to its extinction in 1914.
Today, scientists are working on a way to resurrect the passenger pigeon and other extinct species using a new form of molecular biology called de-extinction. Using DNA retrieved from extinct species, scientists are now exploring projects which would “de-extinct” formerly extinct species and bring them back to life once again. Possible de-extinction species include the Woolly mammoth, Tasmanian tiger, Dodo bird, Gastric-brooding frog, Pyrenean ibex, Carolina parakeet, Moa, Woolly rhinoceros, and Saber-toothed tiger.
The first-ever public conference exploring the revival of extinct species was held in Washington D.C. last week, hosted by The National Geographic Society in conjunction with TEDxDeExtinction and Project Revive & Restore. Project Revive & Restore is currently working with de-extinction scientists around the world to select species for “revival” based on criteria such as practicality and desirability.
The first project in the U.S. involves the resurrection of the passenger pigeon using DNA from museum specimens such as “Martha,” the very last passenger pigeon, on display at the Smithsonian. The passenger pigeon was chosen for its “iconic status and its relative practicality” according to Revive & Restore’s website. Additionally, “its DNA has already been sequenced,” allowing the “miracle of resurrection” to begin. According to Revive & Restore, “the work will proceed by stages over the coming months.”
Ben Novak, a passenger pigeon and ancient DNA expert, is currently working full-time with Revive & Restore to “refine the sequencing of passenger pigeon DNA” as well as return the passenger pigeon back to life. Using DNA from extinct passenger pigeons and comparing it to the passenger pigeon’s closest living relatives, band-tailed and rock pigeons, Novak and other scientists working on the project will “begin the process of converting viable band-tailed DNA into viable passenger pigeon DNA.” Scientists will use that DNA to create live passenger pigeons. Those birds will then be bred to create more birds, which will eventually be returned to the wild.
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TQ8TlUxiqgY
But will these “new” passenger pigeons truly be passenger pigeons? As Novak says, “If it looks like a passenger pigeon and behaves like a passenger pigeon, is it a passenger pigeon or does it have to be an exact duplicate of the genomes?”
Just one of the many questions now being raised in the field of de-extinction. But beyond the feasibility and logistics of reviving extinct species, probably the biggest question being raised concerning de-extinction involves ethics—are we “playing God” by resurrecting extinct species?
Scientists are divided on de-extinction. Some believe humans were already playing God when they drove certain species to extinction through hunting or other human-related actions. Still others believe we should leave well enough alone; that endangered species and extinct species are just part of the natural process.
Carl Zimmer, an award-winning science writer and author of 13 books dealing with evolution and related topics, believes that “the rate at which species are going extinct” is continuing to increase “due to us—to our hunting, logging, and other actions that leave species struggling to hold on to existence.” He believes that if we continue along these lines of action, “we could jack the extinction rate to levels that life has achieved only five times in the past half billion years.”
In addition, Zimmer says that because “the whole conservation movement is organized around the proposition that biodiversity is something worth saving—that when a species goes extinct, it can leave a hole and its ecosystem may suffer—we lose the opportunity to investigate its biology and discover some fascinating piece of natural history or even find a valuable molecule for curing infections or sequencing DNA.”
So is de-extinction a “tool for slowing or reversing this trend?” According to Zimmer, “that’s a good question. But one thing’s for sure. We’re not playing God. We’re coming to terms with our own powers, as well as the unexpected results of our actions.”
Other scientists are concerned, however, that putting enormous sums of research monies into de-extinction will take away from normal conservation efforts. Additionally, they are concerned that de-extinction could cause a laissez-faire attitude towards threatened and endangered species, which may actually increase extinction rates.
So should we bring back species that could potentially threaten us or upset entire ecosystems, and if we do bring them back, what will we do with them? Will we literally create Jurassic Parks around the world to hold them? Efforts are already underway in Siberia to create a Pleistocene Park, as well as in the Netherlands (Oostvaardersplassen) and Hawaii (Makauwahi Cave). And if some of these resurrected species are returned to a “natural state,” how will they affect the balance of current ecosystems?
Too many questions without answers. The bioethics of de-extinction must be carefully considered before proceeding with these projects. As Marilyn Renfree of the University of Melbourne said, “the reasonable response by scientists eager to know about these extinct species should be not to produce such an animal back to life, but learn more about the species from its genetic makeup.”
There was a reason these species went extinct. Let’s not rush to resurrect them without considering all the possible consequences or we just might be the next species to become extinct.
Share this post...
