This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/nature-up/2013/jun/07/deextinction-critics-scientific-american

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
De-extinction critics at Scientific American have missed the point De-extinction critics at Scientific American have missed the point
(4 months later)
The woolly mammoth has been having a terrible time of it. Not only did this fantastically furry beast go extinct some 4,000 years ago, but now increasing numbers of influential people are saying that we should not try to bring it – and other extinct species – back to life, as scientists and an assortment of tech-savvy dreamers have recently proposed to do.The woolly mammoth has been having a terrible time of it. Not only did this fantastically furry beast go extinct some 4,000 years ago, but now increasing numbers of influential people are saying that we should not try to bring it – and other extinct species – back to life, as scientists and an assortment of tech-savvy dreamers have recently proposed to do.
I'm talking about resurrection biology, aka de-extinction, the idea that scientists could use new genetic technologies like cloning to resurrect extinct animals using DNA extracted from museum specimens, frozen tissue samples or even (in the case of the mammoth) from carcasses preserved under the Arctic tundra.I'm talking about resurrection biology, aka de-extinction, the idea that scientists could use new genetic technologies like cloning to resurrect extinct animals using DNA extracted from museum specimens, frozen tissue samples or even (in the case of the mammoth) from carcasses preserved under the Arctic tundra.
The latest censure of resurrection biology comes from the usually sober Scientific American. Last week's editorial argues that "with limited intellectual bandwidth and financial resources to go around, de-extinction threatens to divert attention from the modern biodiversity crisis." The IUCN Red List categorises more than 20,000 species as threatened with extinction, Sci Am reminds us, and with a looming mass extinction of this size, "conservationists face difficult choices about which species and ecosystems to try to save, since they cannot hope to rescue them all."The latest censure of resurrection biology comes from the usually sober Scientific American. Last week's editorial argues that "with limited intellectual bandwidth and financial resources to go around, de-extinction threatens to divert attention from the modern biodiversity crisis." The IUCN Red List categorises more than 20,000 species as threatened with extinction, Sci Am reminds us, and with a looming mass extinction of this size, "conservationists face difficult choices about which species and ecosystems to try to save, since they cannot hope to rescue them all."
"Against this backdrop, a costly and flamboyant project to resuscitate extinct flora and fauna in the name of conservation looks irresponsible: Should we resurrect the mammoth only to let elephants go under? Of course not.""Against this backdrop, a costly and flamboyant project to resuscitate extinct flora and fauna in the name of conservation looks irresponsible: Should we resurrect the mammoth only to let elephants go under? Of course not."
The editors warn that "the revival of a single extinct beast in a lab does not mark the return of a species, and creating viable populations of extinct animals that could flourish in modern ecosystems is a far more difficult challenge", although they do concede that the de-extinction enterprise is not completely without merit. Its technologies, they say, could be used to help endangered species that have lost much of their genetic diversity "such as the black-footed ferret and the northern white rhino. Such investigations, however, should be conducted under the mantle of preserving modern biodiversity rather than conjuring extinct species from the grave."The editors warn that "the revival of a single extinct beast in a lab does not mark the return of a species, and creating viable populations of extinct animals that could flourish in modern ecosystems is a far more difficult challenge", although they do concede that the de-extinction enterprise is not completely without merit. Its technologies, they say, could be used to help endangered species that have lost much of their genetic diversity "such as the black-footed ferret and the northern white rhino. Such investigations, however, should be conducted under the mantle of preserving modern biodiversity rather than conjuring extinct species from the grave."
In short, their argument is that de-extinction is too expensive and we should spend our brainpower and cash on extant species, not extinct ones. (And not be flamboyant if we can help it.)In short, their argument is that de-extinction is too expensive and we should spend our brainpower and cash on extant species, not extinct ones. (And not be flamboyant if we can help it.)
I found it interesting that Scientific American mentioned the northern white rhinoceros, perhaps better called by an earlier name, Nile rhinoceros. It's ridiculously close to being extinct. In 1960 there were probably over 2,000 in northeast Africa. Today, thanks to relentless poaching and weak conservation efforts, there are none known to be left in the wild and a mere seven in captivity, of which only four, two males and two females, are still young enough to breed.I found it interesting that Scientific American mentioned the northern white rhinoceros, perhaps better called by an earlier name, Nile rhinoceros. It's ridiculously close to being extinct. In 1960 there were probably over 2,000 in northeast Africa. Today, thanks to relentless poaching and weak conservation efforts, there are none known to be left in the wild and a mere seven in captivity, of which only four, two males and two females, are still young enough to breed.
The Nile rhino is hanging on by the very tip of its insanely overpriced horn. Some biologists would call it a 'zombie species', not technically extinct but doomed to oblivion because of its tiny, inbred population.The Nile rhino is hanging on by the very tip of its insanely overpriced horn. Some biologists would call it a 'zombie species', not technically extinct but doomed to oblivion because of its tiny, inbred population.
The two females are mother and daughter, and the males are also close relatives. Only one, the older male, has ever known life in the wild; the other three were born in a Czech zoo. All four breeding-age animals are now at Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya, where I visited them in 2011, and where conservationists are still trying to persuade them to reproduce.The two females are mother and daughter, and the males are also close relatives. Only one, the older male, has ever known life in the wild; the other three were born in a Czech zoo. All four breeding-age animals are now at Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya, where I visited them in 2011, and where conservationists are still trying to persuade them to reproduce.
Due to the last members of the species being adapted to zoo life, it might also have permanently lost memory of important natural behaviours, the things adult animals teach their young to help them to survive. It is certainly functionally extinct, i.e. no longer performing its role in the ecosystem. Large parts of the Nile rhino's historic range in northeast Congo and South Sudan are also bedeviled by rampant poaching and armed conflict.Due to the last members of the species being adapted to zoo life, it might also have permanently lost memory of important natural behaviours, the things adult animals teach their young to help them to survive. It is certainly functionally extinct, i.e. no longer performing its role in the ecosystem. Large parts of the Nile rhino's historic range in northeast Congo and South Sudan are also bedeviled by rampant poaching and armed conflict.
In other words, the remnant micro-population of Nile rhino is rather like a beginning-stage population of de-extincted mammoths or another large mammal would be: missing important behaviours, likely with limited genetic diversity (because they'd have been derived from a small amount of genetic material) and most definitely functionally extinct, with its place in the ecosystem perhaps unsure due to changes that might have occurred in its absence.In other words, the remnant micro-population of Nile rhino is rather like a beginning-stage population of de-extincted mammoths or another large mammal would be: missing important behaviours, likely with limited genetic diversity (because they'd have been derived from a small amount of genetic material) and most definitely functionally extinct, with its place in the ecosystem perhaps unsure due to changes that might have occurred in its absence.
I'm not sure why the Scientific American editors endorse new genetic technologies to build the Nile rhinoceros population but argue against using very similar technologies to bring back other species like the thylacine and the passenger pigeon, species that humans have pushed into extinction within the last century and which could have important roles to play in our ecosystems if brought back.I'm not sure why the Scientific American editors endorse new genetic technologies to build the Nile rhinoceros population but argue against using very similar technologies to bring back other species like the thylacine and the passenger pigeon, species that humans have pushed into extinction within the last century and which could have important roles to play in our ecosystems if brought back.
Most of us have been taught that there's an abrupt line between being extant and being extinct, whereas there is and always has been something of a continuum between the two states. Resurrection biology makes the continuum between species that are abundant, species that are extremely rare and species that have no living members more obvious than it has been in the past because there's now potential to reverse away from 'total' extinction back along the continuum to 'thriving'. This apparently makes many people, including some serious science editor types, irrationally uncomfortable.Most of us have been taught that there's an abrupt line between being extant and being extinct, whereas there is and always has been something of a continuum between the two states. Resurrection biology makes the continuum between species that are abundant, species that are extremely rare and species that have no living members more obvious than it has been in the past because there's now potential to reverse away from 'total' extinction back along the continuum to 'thriving'. This apparently makes many people, including some serious science editor types, irrationally uncomfortable.
Many critics of resurrection biology like David Ehrenfeld, writing in The Guardian, have homed in on its likely massive price tag and like Ehrenfeld, Scientific American presumes that the money for de-extinction has to come from conventional conservation's constrained cashbox.Many critics of resurrection biology like David Ehrenfeld, writing in The Guardian, have homed in on its likely massive price tag and like Ehrenfeld, Scientific American presumes that the money for de-extinction has to come from conventional conservation's constrained cashbox.
Why so? Somewhat unscientifically, they give readers no evidence for their claim.Why so? Somewhat unscientifically, they give readers no evidence for their claim.
I think that resurrection biology efforts could quite realistically attract donors and investors who have never thought of being involved in wildlife conservation before, but are interested in the awesome novelty of bringing things back to life and the impressive (and perhaps impressively profitable) technology involved. They might even become interested in saving species the old-fashioned way, too.I think that resurrection biology efforts could quite realistically attract donors and investors who have never thought of being involved in wildlife conservation before, but are interested in the awesome novelty of bringing things back to life and the impressive (and perhaps impressively profitable) technology involved. They might even become interested in saving species the old-fashioned way, too.
I also think that expensive projects can be good. There's a strong case for spending enormous amounts of money to save species even when it's tough because expensive, long, difficult conservation projects tend to build strong institutions staffed by skilled, dedicated people who see their missions through. The trick is to pick species whose conservation will benefit large numbers of other species and help bring damaged ecosystems back to health.I also think that expensive projects can be good. There's a strong case for spending enormous amounts of money to save species even when it's tough because expensive, long, difficult conservation projects tend to build strong institutions staffed by skilled, dedicated people who see their missions through. The trick is to pick species whose conservation will benefit large numbers of other species and help bring damaged ecosystems back to health.
Consider the California condor: This massive scavenging bird was extinct in the wild in the late 1980s, with a tiny population left in captivity. Over many years and at a cost of over $35 million, a few hundred have been bred and released into California, Arizona and Mexico. They live heavily monitored and subsidized lives, each bird carrying tracking devices and many receiving supplementary food from conservationists. Each year every free-flying condor is captured and tested for lead in their blood, because many condors die after ingesting poisonous lead bullet fragments that are left in hunter-killed deer carcasses.Consider the California condor: This massive scavenging bird was extinct in the wild in the late 1980s, with a tiny population left in captivity. Over many years and at a cost of over $35 million, a few hundred have been bred and released into California, Arizona and Mexico. They live heavily monitored and subsidized lives, each bird carrying tracking devices and many receiving supplementary food from conservationists. Each year every free-flying condor is captured and tested for lead in their blood, because many condors die after ingesting poisonous lead bullet fragments that are left in hunter-killed deer carcasses.
Is the project a failure? After all, a lot of money has been spent to create 'wild' condors that must be constantly and very expensively attended-to.Is the project a failure? After all, a lot of money has been spent to create 'wild' condors that must be constantly and very expensively attended-to.
Maybe not. Putting California condors back in the wild has put a spotlight on lead poisoning, which affects dozens of other species. Voluntary lead reduction efforts are underway in Arizona, and the state of California might ban lead bullets soon, thanks to the dedicated efforts of people who have spent so much time and money getting the condor back from the brink that they're unlikely to stop until the job is done, with considerable benefit to wildlife and human health.Maybe not. Putting California condors back in the wild has put a spotlight on lead poisoning, which affects dozens of other species. Voluntary lead reduction efforts are underway in Arizona, and the state of California might ban lead bullets soon, thanks to the dedicated efforts of people who have spent so much time and money getting the condor back from the brink that they're unlikely to stop until the job is done, with considerable benefit to wildlife and human health.
Scientific American's editors also object to resurrection biology on the basis that "a program to restore extinct species poses a risk of selling the public on a false promise that technology alone can solve our ongoing environmental woes—an implicit assurance that if a species goes away, we can snap our fingers and bring it back."Scientific American's editors also object to resurrection biology on the basis that "a program to restore extinct species poses a risk of selling the public on a false promise that technology alone can solve our ongoing environmental woes—an implicit assurance that if a species goes away, we can snap our fingers and bring it back."
This is a sobering thought that deserves careful consideration, but evidence suggests the reverse could be true; the potential to resurrect species could inspire conservation efforts.This is a sobering thought that deserves careful consideration, but evidence suggests the reverse could be true; the potential to resurrect species could inspire conservation efforts.
When ornithologists said in 2005 that they'd rediscovered the extinct ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas, the notoriously anti-environmental government of George W. Bush eagerly committed more than $10 million to study and conserve it, The Nature Conservancy said they'd buy an extra 200,000 acres of its swampy forest habitat and protect it and the news made headlines around the world – a huge boost for conservation, even though the continued existence of the ivory-bill is now in doubt.When ornithologists said in 2005 that they'd rediscovered the extinct ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas, the notoriously anti-environmental government of George W. Bush eagerly committed more than $10 million to study and conserve it, The Nature Conservancy said they'd buy an extra 200,000 acres of its swampy forest habitat and protect it and the news made headlines around the world – a huge boost for conservation, even though the continued existence of the ivory-bill is now in doubt.
If scientists bring back long-extinct, charismatic species, does anyone seriously think that politicians would stand in the way of allowing them to thrive? People are strongly drawn to miraculous stories of resurrection (Jesus of Nazareth has more than a few fans) and de-extinction could, if framed and conducted correctly, bring new awareness to extinction and habitat protection.If scientists bring back long-extinct, charismatic species, does anyone seriously think that politicians would stand in the way of allowing them to thrive? People are strongly drawn to miraculous stories of resurrection (Jesus of Nazareth has more than a few fans) and de-extinction could, if framed and conducted correctly, bring new awareness to extinction and habitat protection.
Perhaps the strongest argument for resurrection biology is that it allows wildlife conservationists to push forward against the onslaught of extinction, in some sense to win back territory that has been lost, to engage in restoration, rejuvenation and rewilding.Perhaps the strongest argument for resurrection biology is that it allows wildlife conservationists to push forward against the onslaught of extinction, in some sense to win back territory that has been lost, to engage in restoration, rejuvenation and rewilding.
How long can an army remain motivated if it's never allowed to advance, if it's only allowed to hold the line or, step by painful step, retreat?How long can an army remain motivated if it's never allowed to advance, if it's only allowed to hold the line or, step by painful step, retreat?
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.