Bring ‘Em back alive: Taming the Tasmanian tiger cloning project

Negotiating Nostalgia: The Rhetoricity of Thylacine Representation in Tasmanian Tourism

“…Similar nativist sentiments pervaded that ultimate thylacine domestication project, the Australian Museum's highly publicized cloning eff ort. As Amy Lynn Fletcher (2008) observes in her analysis of the lively public discussion of the ethics of the project, while it was diffi cult for some critics to take it seriously, for others it was diffi cult to take it seriously enough: "Ancient DNA as a legitimate scientifi c tool became inextricably tangled in the cultural categories and imaginaries that the memory of the Tasmanian tiger evokes in Australia" (p. 200). Whether the project refl ected the historical lack of respect for the animal among Tasmanian colonials or an attempt at restorative justice among contemporary Australian conservationists was never resolved in the mass media.…”

“…Most recently, theorizing on the intertextuality of republished and recontextualized photographs of captive thylacines, Freeman (2007a) comments on the role of photography as presumably authentic representation in the erasure of the species. And fi nally, Amy Lynn Fletcher's (2008) examination of the now-defunct cloning project suggests how ambivalence over an experimental conservation technology taps into a deeper ambivalence over the extinction of the thylacine itself. Taken together, the work of these scholars, with its emphasis on the complexities of Australian cultural and natural history, national identity, and conservation values, underscores the importance of focusing on thylacine representation in Tasmanian tourism.…”

The potential and pitfalls of de‐extinction

“…Zoologica Scripta published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences., 45, s1, October 2016, pp 22-36 self-sustaining species, and the financial cost of such an endeavour will be also substantial. One of the most highly resonating criticisms of de-extinction is the perspective that, at such a price, the goals do not justify the means, and urgent initiatives to save extant species or maintain ecosystems should be prioritised before the resurrection of the extinct (Yule 2002;Fletcher 2008;Sandler 2014). But opposing this view is the prospect that de-extinction may be a lucrative business (Cottrell et al 2014;Whittle et al 2015), perhaps only needing an initial subsidy.…”

“…Although a number of grounds have been presented to either encourage or justify de‐extinction, including improving the ecosystems that humanity is dependent upon, ethical obligations to maintain nature and life forms, or simply to entertain an audience in a zoo or park (Zimov ; Sherkow & Greely ), an obvious drawback of any de‐extinction project is the time, resources, equipment and expertise required to finalise a fully functioning self‐sustaining species, and the financial cost of such an endeavour will be also substantial. One of the most highly resonating criticisms of de‐extinction is the perspective that, at such a price, the goals do not justify the means, and urgent initiatives to save extant species or maintain ecosystems should be prioritised before the resurrection of the extinct (Yule ; Fletcher ; Sandler ). But opposing this view is the prospect that de‐extinction may be a lucrative business (Cottrell et al .…”

The Ethics of Animal Re-creation and Modification

“…The scientific relevance of sequencing fossil DNA today remains purely of cognitive interest without direct practical applications, except in helping taxonomists, palaeontologists and anthropologists to make sense of past biological events. Even though many palaeogeneticists assert that they do not intend to resurrect species and fix limits to their 22 knowledge and technical capabilities (Orlando 2005), other powerful interests may be driven by scientific, ecological or nationalistic ambitions (Fletcher 2008) and may lobby actively for the implementation of such projects. Therefore, it seems wise and timely to look into the future, to explore the epistemological, metaphysical and ethical implications of a possible technology that could change our conception of life and evolution, even if such were to remain unrealized forever.…”