I don't think any individual is inherently obligated to put their spare wealth towards any particular cause - even morally, though I differentiate between "absolutely morally required" and "probably should because it would be morally better / right." That being said, this is definitely an important consideration for the independent donors mentioned, the people or organizations handing out grants, and the projects that take and use this money.

Ultimately, conservationists and de-extinction efforts have the same goals, yet they are at odds as if they are opposites. I don't think every exploration of de-extinction is a waste of time and money. But I also think that de-extinction projects could very well be spending their time and money to help bring back species that are extinct in the wild or functionally extinct - there are still living individuals or small populations, but there are too few to be able to reproduce naturally and effectively enough to sustain the species. I can't see any reason as to why a project would focus on reviving mammoths instead of growing the almost spent population of white rhinos - both "sides" would benefit and agree with such efforts.

Also a reasonable argument, though for recently extinct species I don't think this would be particularly hard to find out and consider

"The cost of de-extinction very well might be for nothing even if there are potential benefits, and conservation is already underfunded, so these resources should just go into conservation"

A reasonable argument, though de-extinction technology is not exclusive to de-extinction and are many more benefits to investing in anything related to cloning and genetic engineering

Considered controversial for inciting fear about overpopulation

First, this is possibly one of the worse criteria for conservation and de-extinction alike. Protecting animals that are "cute" (the panda) or more symbolic (the cheetah) over others for those reasons alone is not particularly helpful or fair. Ecological roles are a much more important consideration - which Brand does include, to give him credit.

Additionally, using this as an argument in favor of bringing the passenger pigeon back feels a bit contradictory, from a standpoint perhaps more literary than logical. Changing "we were not careful and ignored scientists' warnings, and as a result learned the consequences of our actions the hard way" to "there were consequences for our ignorance and reckless actions, but they didn't matter because we just reversed them (and therefore do not have to be careful or be aware of our actions)" just feels wrong.

"likely cannot"? I feel like this is something that is easy to investigate + observe - before starting work on de-extinction, even, to determine whether the effort and resources spent will be worth it

This page no longer exists - I'm not sure if I find this more funny or possibly concerning

Again, reviving a species - regardless of feasibility or importance - is always going to come at a great cost. This cost can always be put towards conservation instead.

It's interesting that the co-founder's rebuttal is that recently extinct species would never be a serious consideration because there are living species with similar (but not exactly the same, especially given a relatively short timeframe) ecological niches. Yet the mammoth - which has no current ecosystem to play a role in, and would have to pretty much single-handedly change the environment so much as to reverse and continuously work against the effects of natural and on-going, human-accelerated climate change just to have a habitat - is one of the main focuses of the project. I find this rather absurd, to put it lightly.

Is the analysis not still relevant, though? Any species brought back would still require a great amount of resources both to revive it in the first place and for conservation because it would be endangered immediately upon resurrection.

(just for the sake of it) You could still argue that these funds and grants would be better put towards conservation efforts if there is money to spare on such hypotheticals.

This report is six years old now - I wonder if the outlook is more optimistic or pessimistic now, or about the same.

Why these species? Is there a particular ecological benefit their resurrection would have - limiting the ecological damage caused by a recently extinct species? Is it simply easier because they have many well-preserved specimens and close living relatives?

I can't see the benefit of bringing back a species like the mammoth except for to show off technological advancements. Their original habitat is either drastically changed or completely gone. The most recently living population of mammoths died thousands of years ago, and the majority of them went extinct even further back. The project website describes that mammoths could help restore grassland biomes where there are now barren tundras and even combat climate change - but would that not negatively impact the current ecosystem and the species that live there now? Is restoring grasslands from millennia past so critically important to warrant this level of priority?

What a powerful statement, if somewhat accusatory. I don't think this is a conscious choice every de-extinction researcher / project is making, and certainly every scientific advancement has not been made only after extensive consideration of every priority and possible consequence, but this is also not something that can be ignored or easily dismissed.

Could / Will there ever come a point where the research says otherwise? What would that take?

In a hypothetical ideal where there are no longer any endangered or threatened species, maybe. I am not optimistic that this will ever even be possible, let alone achieved.

That is the question

I believe this comes down to the potential risks and benefits for each, as well as the costs (money, time, other resources). With these considerations, protecting current species is easily the better choice.

A proxy species - there is debate over whether this would be close enough to the original target species to "count" or if it would be something entirely new.

Is there evidence for this specific timeframe?

in some cases, sure (I would like to see specific examples) - is the argument here that reviving the ecological partner or link in question would help save the other species from extinction or at least further endangerment?

Furthermore, Novak states that the effect of missing another species only "partly" contributes to their endangered status. How big is this part? What are the other factors, and are these more reasonable to solve or at least mitigate than attempting de-extinction?

Who's to say? Some argue that bringing back the mammoth is crossing a line, ecological or ethical, though many are still arguing for and actively pursuing that goal. Unethicality and illegality can't and won't stop everyone. Is there such a strict line to be crossed with cloning humans that we can really expect to never see it, or at least see considerations for it?

Are people aware of this? If so, what is the point in getting an exact look-alike rather than a new, different animal?

If not, I feel the same way about this than I do in my previous note. People being tricked (for lack of a better word) by the cloning facilities or by themselves into thinking that they have their pet back only serves to lessen the full weight and significance of death. It also might lead people to not respect or recognize individuality - perhaps a bit of a stretch, and the animal might not know any better, but it feels unfair to me.

It could, but it could also lead people to focus on de-extinction over conservation because a successful resurrection might make extinction seem reversible and less severe or urgent than it really is.

And there it is! I'm not quite convinced, though I'm open to changing my mind as the technology and practices develop.

(continued) De-extinction is where it starts to get shaky. The resurrection of species that have recently gone extinct at the hand of humans falls closer to my previous point. But - to use the mammoth as an example once more - mammoths have not reproduced for thousands of years. There are no more mammoths to reproduce and their resurrection requires the creation of a whole new animal. Creating hybrids is not for the purpose of expanding the gene pool of an existing population to ensure its survival.

Furthermore, "there are natural counterparts in the wild" is not a very strong argument for this. Some lizards might clone themselves, and many microbes reproduce almost exclusively through cloning. Mammoths are not lizards or microbes. Bacteria and viruses can edit genes - a virus reproduces by hijacking a living cell and basically recoding it with its own genetic material so the cell produces more viruses rather than its typical proteins. Mammoths are not bacteria or viruses either.

Of course, neither are we, and recently extinct or endangered species aren't either. But these species would have larger populations and genetic variation naturally without the damaging effects of human activity - cloning and genetic engineering in these cases serves to help or replace a natural process that would be taking place otherwise, just as IVF helps or replaces steps in the reproductive cycle that would happen if not for uncontrollable circumstances.

Reminds me of the debate / discussion around IVF. To me, these sorts of scientific / medical advancements are not inherently unethical - what matters is the intent and practice.

IVF, for example, I see as a tool or process that helps reproduction happen as it normally would. Having babies is something that is normally possible, and IVF just helps this process in people with difficulties conceiving. Cloning or other artificial reproduction of endangered or near-extinct species is much the same, especially with those largely affected by human activity. Reproduction and population management would normally occur if not for human intervention, so processes like cloning are helping what would be natural.

Technically true, though I find this statement to be a bit misleading. "De-extinction" is primarily used in reference to resurrection biology and the idea of bringing back fully extinct species. De-extinction itself is a misleading term. I think the language surrounding these topics should be carefully considered and universally defined, so as not to cause confusion within the scientific community and with the general population.

This argument is the strongest to me. Using de-extinction techniques and efforts for species that are not yet entirely extinct but no longer have populations large or viable enough to reproduce and survive in their environment. This eliminates many of the hypothetical considerations and the need to reconstruct genomes based on guesses.

Relates to my point about the wolves in Yellowstone and mammoths

An animal that has gone extinct as recently as about 100 years ago does not stand much of a chance of surviving in its original habitat. Bringing back the mammoth to restore its former environment, then, feels even more like a hypothetical at best and at worst a waste of resources that could be better allotted elsewhere.

I do generally agree with this sentiment. I think it is a good consideration when it comes to conservation and mitigating the damage done by an extinction, though I don't necessarily think it should be the main choice or focus.

This would definitely be interesting to study for these medical purposes. Though I have to ask - is this really the most promising research when it comes to stomach procedures and treatments? Going through the time and effort of resurrecting a species because it may provide insight to medical developments feels like a bit of a roundabout way to help with these issues.

But do we need to restore these branches? I can certainly see the benefit of reviving species that have gone extinct as a result of human activity. But genetic uniqueness is not necessarily an important thing. Unique genetics is probably one of the greatest sources of natural extinction - specific requirements to live or reproduce does not make for an adaptable species, and being unable to reproduce with related populations means even smaller gene pools + variety within already dwindling numbers.

Similar effects have been seen with the reintroduction of existing species into habitats they had been overhunted or otherwise driven from - introducing wolves back into Yellowstone, for example, has changed the environment so much as to change the course of rivers (wolves hunting overpopulated elk, less over-grazing means more plants to stabilize riverbanks + reduce erosion and allowing more plants to grow to full maturity, which provides habitats + resources for species of birds and beavers). But wolves are an extant species and their environment, while changed in their absence, is still habitable for them. Mammoths have been gone for thousands of years and many of the species that lived alongside them are also extinct. I am struggling a bit to understand exactly how bringing back the mammoth would be particularly beneficial, especially for the species that have since adapted to the tundra.

I think this is a fair point, but as an argument for de-extinction I think it really only applies to recently extinct species, and even then only those that humans have played a big role in driving to extinction.

Without (or with minimal) human interaction, species do not just go extinct for no reason. Natural shifts in the climate or environment, too much competition, a rise in predators - animals must adapt (which, genetically, is random), move out, or die. In most cases, the species' ecological niche (or role or "job") are filled by their competitors or are no longer needed as a result of the environmental changes.

In return I would argue that this does matter. Again, the question of the viability of a new mammoth population is extremely important to consider before these resurrection projects even start. And what constitutes "good enough?" Creating an animal that looks and functions like a mammoth just for the sake of creating a mammoth is not worth it in my eyes.

This is a good point - while there were (and always are) many factors, the most prevalent theory is that mammoths went extinct mostly due to natural climate changes. How can we be sure these new "mammoths" will survive and not simply die off from natural extinction again? There is a reason the mammoths died and elephants lasted - elephants are better suited for their environment.

This raises a couple of questions from me -

Do we need to have elephants that can live in the cold? What would the habitats these animals would be introduced into gain from having these elephants? Are there possible consequences? Would this new species even survive - if they are just altered elephants, how can we be sure they would be able to find and eat different plant material?

Secondly, instead of creating new animals that may or may not be a suitable proxy for extinct species, why not invest in engineering living animals so they might be able to survive better in changing or diminishing habitats? If, for example, these elephants' environments were becoming too cold for them to handle, this might be a more productive pursuit.

Again, the idea of a "proxy species" rather than an individual that is actually the target species.

Did quaggas play the same role in their ecosystem as a zebra would? Did they behave in the same way?

If so, why not just introduce zebras into these habitats and / or just help protect and increase zebra populations (they are endangered)? If not, what would be the point of creating an animal that resembles the quagga in physical appearance only?

Related to earlier comments - is there a good reason to focus on mammoths over existing or recently-extinct species? From previous research and other headlines + news reports, it seems that bringing back the mammoth is more for the novelty and how recognizable the animal is more than anything.

These examples answer the question of "could" but not of "should" or "why" - why these species specifically?

Is there a reason for the efforts to focus on this species specifically? Is its ecosystem particularly suffering in its absence, is it easier to try to clone / create new animals because of its unique reproductive process, or is it simply because it is interesting?

Is this a question of necessity - considering ecological damage - or moral responsibility (or both)?

Even if this would also be considered "de-extinction," why are researchers and projects putting time and resources into trying to bring back species that are already extinct instead of going straight to helping endangered living species?

Well, the mammoth's natural habitat no longer exists - or it has changed enough to be almost unrecognizable from its original state, anyways.

From prior research, the created organism will never quite be the "real thing," unless a clone can be created without any kind of genetic engineering. Will they consider a proxy species to be close enough?

What are these risks?

Would there ever come a point where the potential benefits might outweigh these risks?