Rule Of Thumb: The Ethics Of De-Extinction
Earth is currently amidst its sixth mass extinction, the fifth mass extinction being 66 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct. With the advancements of CRISPR-Cas9 technology and genetic engineering, there is a possibility for de-extinction. The revival of hundreds of plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians that have disappeared from our ecosystem is becoming a realistic consideration, but should it be done?
The combination of shrinking habitats, exploitation of natural resources, climate change, and pollution have threatened the existence of one million out of eight million of the world's species. Between 30 and 159 species disappear every day due to human's unsustainable global resource consumption. Moreover, findings published in the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the rate of species loss has accelerated greater than expected in recent decades.
Gerardo Ceballos González, a professor of ecology at the University of Mexico, said approximately 173 species went extinct between 2001 and 2014. That number is 25 times greater than expected under the regular extinction rate. Thus, humans are to blame for the decline of the biological diversity in the world in which we evolved.
According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), agricultural activities have the most considerable impact on ecosystems. These activities that humans rely on for food, clean water, and a stable climate also have the most significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change and rising temperatures caused by emissions have drastically changed our ecosystem, making it inhabitable for many species.
The IPBES report says that the world can reverse the biodiversity crisis. However, doing so would require proactive environmental policies, sustainable food and other resources, and a concerted effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The other option to addressing the crisis and improving biodiversity is exploring genetically engineering the resurrection of many species. Using CRISPR to add genes from an extinct species to the genome of another closely related living species, in theory, would reproduce the lost species - or some hybrid variation.
The Woolly Mammoth has emerged as the leading candidate for this specific research. Increased global temperatures contributed to the species extinction 12,300 years ago, but other researchers found DNA from fossilized creatures that indicate the Woolly Mammoth survived until about 5,600 years ago.
Scientists feel an excellent chance of bringing back a species with similar traits and ecological functions as the Woolly Mammoth through the closest living relative - the Asian elephant. Harvard geneticist George Church has worked on the revival project by placing mammoth genes into elephants' cells. Elephant cells are then coded to display mammoth phenotypes such as long, thick hair and large fat stores to endure Arctic climates.
Church aims to create a hybrid between elephant and mammoth that focuses on applying mammoth adaptations to allow Asian elephants to survive in cold climates. This in-depth research of elephants could provide potentially significant findings for the already endangered species. The number of Asian elephants has dwindled due to habitat loss and poaching. Finding ways to adapt the species to new environments and other protective factors could help the species repopulate. However, it can be argued that the elephant population is endangered; these animals should not be experimented with at the expense of bringing back the woolly mammoth.
Another goal of this research is to improve the ecosystem to confront climate change. The tundra ecosystem( has adapted to the lack of grazing wildlife by shifting towards a shrub-dominated landscape and lack of grassland. Without animals to scrape away winter snow, the ground is insulated and does not freeze. In combination with warming temperatures, that fact accelerates the melting of the permafrost and the release of greenhouse gases. The carbon release from the melting of the world's permafrost is equivalent to burning all the world's forests 2 ½ times.
Reintroducing grazers back into the tundra would help convert the ecosystem back to grasslands. This would improve biodiversity and the abundance of plants and animals. Furthermore, it would prevent the release of greenhouse gases in the summer by better insulating the permafrost.
Can the Woolly Mammoth be brought back to co-exist freely and live a healthy life in our ecosystem, or will the species become a spectacle in zoos and a subject of scientific testing?
While the Woolly Mammoths and other megafauna were some of the first animals to experience the consequences of Earth's rising temperatures, other species are continuously at risk at an even more rapid pace due to human-driven climate change.
Nearly 91% of the sunflower sea star population has been killed between 2013 and 2017 by a disease magnified by the warming oceans. The sunflower sea star is the natural predator of purple sea urchins; without the sea star's presence, urchins have proliferated and devoured bull kelp forest in the ocean. Why is this an issue? The lack of kelp has dramatic consequences to hundreds of marine species dependent on its existence. In addition, kelp forests provide carbon dioxide sequestration and biodiversity for many species, including economically important fished species.
Rising ocean temperatures, pollution, and overfishing disrupt the finely-balanced ecosystem, sending it into chaos that cannot bounce back on its own. Scientists and marine ecologists are attempting to breed sunflower sea stars in captivity with the hope of sending them back into the ocean to correct the ecosystem imbalance. Scientists have been able to produce sea stars through in vitro fertilization.
Restoring the ecosystem is crucial to maintain the equilibrium of all species, including humans. While we are causing a significant portion of the harm to the environment and life within it, we are not excluded from those consequences.
Now the question is not can we bring back extinct species, but should we? Is de-extinction ethical?
Are we trying to uphold some form of justice for extinct species if we know we have the potential to revive them? On the other hand, in the cases where extinction is due to anthropogenic causes, we may feel this is a way to make up for the wrongs done by humans, and it is our responsibility to do so.
Advocates for de-extinction also consider that it would establish the lost value as well as create new value. Each species possesses values that make them unique in the global ecosystem. Each species has ecological value to the systems in which they are located, instrumental values to people, and intrinsic value.
While genetic engineering makes de-extinction a possibility to restore the ecosystem, several ethical concerns have been raised. De-extinction can be considered unnatural because it requires transgenic biotechnologies, which involve mixing genomic material between species that would not have occurred without human intervention. However, as genetic engineering becomes more commonly practiced in the medical field and normalized, will this technology be considered unnatural anymore?
There is also a concern for the welfare of animals used in de-extinction experimentation. Primarily regarding cloning, which has low success rates and causes the animals involved to have complicated and adverse health outcomes.
Dolly the sheep was the first cloned mammal from an adult cell. Analysis of Dolly's DNA showed that her telomeres, the protective ends of DNA strands, were shorter than that of a normal sheep at the same age. As a result, Dolly became infected with a disease that caused lung cancer in her at three years old and arthritis at four years old. Nevertheless, Dolly lived a standard quality of life until she passed away due to the complications of her illnesses at five years old.
Critics of cloning argued that Dolly's short life span, compared to the average twelve-year life span of sheep, was due to the health complications caused by irregularities in her DNA.
There is also concern that manipulating DNA to reproduce or alter species is hubristic. Controlling the outcome of a biological process is a form of "playing God." Should we be the ones to decide what species lives on and what does not?
As technological advancement brings more confidence regarding reviving lost species, more careful consideration must determine if it is the right thing to do. For example, the ability to restore balance in the ecosystem through the use of genetic engineering is a significant step towards improving the quality of the planet. But who is to say that we have the right to do this?
While we might feel that as humans, it is our responsibility to rectify the harm we have done to the environment over several decades. We have to understand how to regulate the use of this technology so as not to cause further damage to our environment, other living species, or ourselves.
