De-extinction is now a scientific possibility. Should we bring back animals from the Paleolithic? If so, how should we? What are the ethical implications of resurrecting extinct organisms? These are questions we will be facing this decade.
Great post. For a couple decades now, there has been a group trying to lobby the gov't to make a new National Park called Buffalo Commons. The point being to restore some of the grasslands/savanna of the Great Plains, and therefore restore the natural habitat of the bison. This place would be all the more amazing if it also contained saber tooth cats, mammoths, and giant beavers. Imagine being able to go on a safari in a few hours' drive instead of having to fly to Botswana! There is a huge problem with de-extinction, however, and you touch on it a bit in your post. That is, an organism is way more than just its DNA. All of the biomolecules are important, but especially the transcription factors and non-coding RNAs. This is important, because they are largely contained in the egg, and as we would have to use a cross-species egg (e.g. elephant egg to restore the mammoth), there could be some major biological implications. There was news recently about de-extinction of the gastric brooding frog, but the animals apparently all died in the tadpole stage. Its a step forward, but I fear that the problem is one bigger than DNA, perhaps an intractable problem. I hope not.
You make a very good point, one that I should perhaps elaborate on in a future post. The Bucardo was the first animal to be "resurrected' but it only for 7 minutes before dying from lung complications. It could be that researchers have solved the problems with de-exxtinciton - but we may run into major complications. And even after solving any developmental problems there may be with resurrected animals - we still have to worry about "re-wilding," which could prove problematic for many species.
I first read about this concept about a dozen years ago. The article I read was about the possibility of first creating African elephant/mammoth hybrids, in part to lead to the creation of an animal that could handle the size of a "pure" mammoth. The article also proposed that such animals might be sold as a food source, in part to justify their de-extinction. The target audience for the article seemed to be high school kids, so I'd guess that the food idea was at least partly a joke. It's an interesting idea to bring these animals back, but what would it take to create the kind of wildlife management system and corps of personnel to effectively manage wild populations of these animals? Mammoths among other megafauna likely had large ranges. In modern sanctuaries, this is often a problem, or so I'm given to understand. In addition, given the widespread leeching of chemicals and man-made pollutants like plastics into groundwater and into plant life, how might that affect these animals? Another problem is that large predators need lots of meat. Are there stable enough populations of prey animals to support them, or would populations of prey animals need to be established? If so, what would they eat? Would they compete with existing species? Out of curiosity, why don't you support the de-extinction of Neanderthals? Do you feel that way about all extinct hominids?
You raise a lot of problems that I think we should all start considering. That is why I am so supportive of the TEDx event specifically focused on de-extinction. It will raise public awareness and get people thinking about what this means for the future of the biosphere. For your first questions I think you are focused on the biggest issues (wildlife ecology). You can't just bring back extinct animals - you have to try and recreate ecosystems that no longer exist. Bringing back a saber-toothed cat and placing it in a contemporary environment would be extremely problematic. Experts from paleontology, ecology and conservation biology will need to organize and come up with species-specific plans if this is going to happen. I do not support the de-extinction of Neanderthals for many reasons which I outlined in a previously post. The biggest reasons being that Neanderthals would a) be conscious beings that would struggle to find an identity in the modern world and b) our history of discrimination and conceptualization of intelligence indicate that there would be massive tensions between our species and another human species. I would also worry about the first Neanderthals being exploited by reality television and scientific studies.
How do you stand on the "we're part of the environment, so any extinctions we've caused are natural" position? (Even disregarding the fact that we caused extinctions at a vastly greater rate than they've ever come before.) I should add that practical de-extinction has been my dream since I read Last Chance To See when I was a kid. I do think we have a responsibility to the biosphere just as much as we do to the planet in general.
Deconstructing the "natural/unnatural" dichotomy plays a big role in my own personal scientific philosophy. I think it is completely tenable to argue that "we are part of nature so these extinction rates are natural." However, I also believe that because we are have an incredible power over all life on earth, that we also have a responsibility for it. We have a moral imperative to treat the biosphere that allowed for our existence with respect. This happens to also be a prudent position for our species to take since we do not benefit from destroying ecosystems that we directly and indirectly rely on.
That's the position I take. But it's hard to convince taxpayers to fund endangered species-research. Have you read Last Chance To See?
We are certainly living in exciting times.“Wildlife experts in and around Yellowstone National Park have enough trouble trying to get the public to accept the presence of wolves – carnivores that were extirpated from the area within recent history before being reintroduced two decades ago – and conservationists continue to struggle with the persistent conflict between jaguars and ranchers in South America. Can you imagine the uproar over sabertoothed cats being returned to the western United States or South American grasslands?”
-I don't think this is a feasible way to go, unfortunately. Even with something as seemingly benign as reintroducing the Passenger Pigeon, couldn't there be some large unintended consequences? I would think the most prudent thing to do (aside from not doing it in the first place) would be to have sanctuaries for such endeavors. I could see a thriving tourism economy around this. I would pay money to go see a Saber Toothed Tiger or a Wooly Mammoth. But I don't think I'd like to see either in my back yard.
You know what, it is surprising but I think my opinion is changing on this slightly. For a long time I was a big supporter for de-extinction (except for Neanderthals. However, I don't think we are ready for it in a big way... especially considering many Paleolithic megafauna were adapted to an Ice Age climate. It would be foolish to bring them into our world until we stop climate change. And like you said... no one is going to want a wild saber-toothed cat in their backyard. But you bring up a good point about a tourism economy... if I was a betting man I'd say there will be a Paleolithic Park before 2050.