Drastic times call for Jurassic measures: reversing extinction with science

No other life form has the capacity to end, preserve, or resurrect a species. We have a troubling lack of foresight when it comes to this intervention.

Image credit: Universal Pictures

Ever since childhood, I’ve always loved dinosaurs. I knew how to spell ‘brachiosaurus’ before I started primary school. Now, Jurassic Park is my comfort movie. Not only does it have cool dinosaurs, but it also has a clear thesis: no matter how cool those dinosaurs are, reversing extinction is a bad idea.

When I saw headlines about biologists bringing back the Tasmanian Tiger, my interest was piqued. It seems like an innovative way to combat extinction; current methods of preserving endangered populations aren’t working. Extinction leaves ecosystems destabilised; in the century since the Thylacine’s extinction, no predator has replaced it in the Tasmanian bush ecosystem. Without predators, prey populations grow, wreaking havoc on plant life and spreading genetic weaknesses. If human intervention leads to a species’ extinction and an ecosystem’s destabilisation, shouldn’t we try to stop that extinction?

There are key differences between preventing and reversing extinction. Prevention involves legal protection of species and habitats, creation of sanctuaries, and opposition to destructive practices like deforestation. Reversal reintroduces a species that has been absent from an ecosystem for some time by planting modified embryos in a similar animal to gestate.

Practically, there is no guarantee we can viably raise any Thylacines, let alone a sustainably large population. The Tasmanian bush has not had an apex predator for a century. Even a careful reintroduction could destabilise the ecosystem once more.

Ethically, ‘playing God’ is troublesome. No other life form has the capacity to end, preserve, or resurrect a species. We have a troubling lack of foresight when it comes to this intervention. Our choices to meddle in the course of nature have vast consequences on the course of life on Earth. We cannot know these consequences. We shouldn’t intervene.

This neglects how our intervention has already caused extinctions in the first place. Regardless, there are too many unknowns and too much room for misuse. If we can edit genes enough to resurrect species, surely we can edit genes to engineer animals to serve other purposes. This could be misused by someone looking to use animals in an exploitative way; labour, competition, even warfare. It is not our place to customise animals like this.

If we have limited resources and will to save endangered animals, our priority should be preservation. Failing that, we must suffer the consequences of our actions rather than intervening once more with exploitable and volatile technology. Despite my opposition, I know we will likely try to resurrect the Thylacine. No ethical or allegorical opposition can stop curious minds pushing the boundaries of possibility. All we can do is our best to prevent extinction and that's enough. After all, life, uh, finds a way.