The Pros And Cons Of De Extinction

Since the release of “Jurassic Park”, scientists have discussed and worked to develop de extinction, or the cloning of extinct species from the ancient past using biotechnology. While the idea of de extinction is enticing at first glance, and if achieved would be a biological triumph, many oppose this plan. The actual science of de extinction has lagged behind the fictional adaptions; and with the concern of conservation, many wonder if it’s even worth it. I personally believe extinct species shouldn’t be brought back into existence because of the repercussions it could possibly have on society. One reason for my opposition of de extinction is the lack of attention in other efforts in favor of de extinction. Stuart Pimm, author of “Case Against Species Revival”, recalls “… molecular biologists flourished as university administrators drooled over their large grants and their expensive labs,” (Text 3, lines 41-43). This example of unfair funding to research towards de extinction and the lack of funding in

Carl Zimmer, a writer for National Geographic, stated, “Some extinct animals also performed vital services in their ecosystems, which might benefit from their return” (Text 2, line 31-32). While this could be true, the possible negatives I’ve mentioned previously outweigh the positives, and a return to the wild is easier said than done. Another point for de extinction is made in Text 1, as the author says, “Some claimed that bringing back species that were caused to go extinct by human practices would… help make up for the wrong of extinction” (Text 1, line 25-26). The unfortunate truth of this matter is the wrong has already been done, and using de extinction to reverse it could possibly destroy ecosystems more, or prove completely futile. Most claims for de extinction can be disproven by showing how much is unknown about