Deextinction Debate Overshadows Key Conservation Issues

The Tasmanian tiger, also known as the thylacine, has been extinct since 1936. This unique species, which resembles a mix of a dog, zebra, and kangaroo, was hunted to extinction by European settlers who blamed it for attacks on sheep, poultry, and other livestock.

Before the thylacine was fully eradicated, 13 pups were preserved in alcohol and are now scattered across museum and university collections. One of these preserved specimens has yielded enough genetic material to map the animal’s genome.

A team of scientists and entrepreneurs, led by University of Melbourne geneticist Andrew Pask and billionaire entrepreneur Ben Lamm, hopes to bring the thylacine back to life through a process known as “de-extinction.” They plan to genetically engineer a functional equivalent of the thylacine to restore its lost ecological role and help repair damaged ecosystems.

Marsupials, such as the thylacine, are attractive candidates for de-extinction due to their short gestation period and the possibility of using surrogate mothers. The replication process can be iterated and perfected relatively rapidly, making it easier to bring back the thylacine compared to other extinct species like the woolly mammoth.

However, there are concerns about the feasibility and ethics of de-extinction. Some scientists argue that the thylacine was already in terminal decline before human hunting and competition from dingos pushed it out of mainland Australia. Low genetic diversity also left the species susceptible to disease.

Biodiversity conservation is traditionally biased toward caution, but precaution comes with its own costs. Intelligent trials of de-extinction and other radical conservation interventions can keep risks to a minimum while allowing us to learn more about their practicality and consequences.

Start small, build up slowly, and monitor carefully. Transform criticism into reasonable precautions and protect against conflicts of interest. Take steps to lessen the potential impact on the victims of error, both human and nonhuman. Such commonsensical strategies can turn a proposal that initially seems like opening Pandora’s box into a mechanism for improving the safety of radical conservation interventions.

Biodiversity impacts nearly all of us, and conservation decisions shouldn’t only be made by those who claim to speak for “the best available science” or who have millions of dollars in venture capital funding. Almost everyone deserves some input into how we try to achieve a wilder and more sustainable future.

It is necessary.