De‐extinction and Barriers to the Application of New Conservation Tools

Abstract

Decades of globally coordinated work in conservation have failed to slow the loss of biodiversity. To do better—even if that means nothing more than failing less spectacularly—bolder thinking is necessary. One of the first possible conservation applications of synthetic biology to be debated is the use of genetic tools to resurrect once‐extinct species. Since the currency of conservation is biodiversity and the discipline of conservation biology was formed around the prevention of species extinctions, the prospect of reversing extinctions might have been expected to generate unreserved enthusiasm. But it was not universal acclaim that greeted the coming‐out party for “de‐extinction” that was the TEDx conference and accompanying National Geographic feature in 2013. Why the concern, the skepticism, even the hostility among many conservationists about the idea of restoring lost species? And how does this professional concern relate to public perception and support for conservation? This essay explores the barriers to the acceptance of risky new genomic‐based conservation tools by considering five key areas and associated questions that could be addressed in relation to any new conservation tool. I illustrate these using the specific example of de‐extinction, and in doing so, I consider whether de‐extinction would necessarily be the best first point of engagement between conservation biology and synthetic biology.

Rewilding Lite: Using Traditional Domestic Livestock to Achieve Rewilding Outcomes

“…This has been a pipe dream for many years, with discussions waxing and waning about bringing back, for example, mammoths (Mammuthus spp.) using ancient DNA [43]. To date, the DNA, even from mammoths preserved in permafrost, is not of sufficient quality to use in fertility programmes involving a close relative of the mammoth, that is, the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus).…”

Opportunities for modern genetic technologies to maintain and enhance Aotearoa New Zealand’s bioheritage

“…At this early stage, the value in improving biodiversity through resurrection of a single species appears to be outweighed by how many different threatened species could be conserved with the same resources Iacona et al 2017). Currently, although de-extinction is not a zero-sum game (Seddon 2017a), bioheritage is best maintained through conservation of at-risk species, a process that should be informed by genetic technologies, but not yet enhanced through species de-extinction.…”

De-Extinction

“…It is rather easy to build a body of literature based on postulation, speculation and opinion but rather difficult to build a reliable body of knowledge based on thorough reviews, model simulations and empirical data, all of which take considerable time, especially for programs that are expected to encompass entire careers or longer. Of the literature published to date, less than 10% is based upon any modelled or collected data [ 53 , 141 , 184 , 185 , 200 ] and only half root their arguments and discussions in relevant empirical or substantiated established intellectual content [ 19 , 23 , 25 , 53 , 65 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 141 , 155 , 157 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 180 , 182 , 183 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 , 191 , 192 , 201 , 202 ]. The remaining publications present many debates and perspectives within a “hyperbolic echo chamber” of de-extinction concerns without drawing from examples of reintroduction biology, animal welfare ethics, or other pertinent established fields of literature and science [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 69 , 73 , 154 , 158 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , ...…”