Reviving the Dead: Hope or Hazards of De-Extinction Science
When people think of de-extinction, the first thing to come to mind is usually “Jurassic Park”, where dinosaurs roam enclosures before tragedy strikes and these prehistoric forces of nature begin to destroy everything around them. Although the movie screen attempts to make fiction reality, Colossal Sciences brings that fiction to life. The scientists at Colossal are attempting to revive less scaly and more furry animals. They have resurrected the dire wolf and are currently working on bringing back the woolly mammoth (Wyss Institute 2021). But how does one get back these marvels of the past? One strategy is called Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR), also commonly referred to as gene editing. CRISPR can edit a living organism's genetic code (Broad Institute 2014). They edit the genes of animals with close genetic relations to prehistoric animals. Colossal Sciences' goal is to combat the loss of biodiversity in ecosystems worldwide by bringing back animals they believe can achieve this goal (Wyss Institute 2021). Colossal Sciences was founded by Ben Lamm and Dr. George Church in 2021. Lamm is an entrepreneur who founded many tech companies, while Dr. Church is a professor at Harvard and MIT, as well as a pioneer in the field of genomics (Company 2021). But although Colossal Biosciences claims that their de-extinction technology will boost innovation and help with ecological restoration, research indicates that such companies drain investments and offer little to no economic or environmental outcome.
One of the leading arguments for continuing to fund de-extinction technology is its potential applications in the medical field. Colossal Sciences compares this to the Apollo missions, where to get to the moon, new technologies such as “GPS, cochlear implants, solar panels, and LASIK” had to be invented (Broad Institute 2014). While some of the technology that Colossal Sciences claims as “innovations” already exists, de-extinction technology could still play a significant role in medical advancements. For instance, the study of extinct species could provide valuable insights into diseases and genetic disorders. However, a major concern is that when these animals come back, there will be less focus on conservation needs. These animals may steal the spotlight from the animals who currently need help (Béllo Carvalho 2025). In terms of the potential spillovers into the medical field, critics claim that the odds the new technology will be affordable or implemented into the general public are slim to none. Because gene editing technology has a multi-million dollar cost, producers face strong incentives to elevate price levels. Therefore, there is little possibility that the average person will be able to afford that treatment.
Another benefit of de-extinction is that it will help boost ecotourism and increase support for conservation. Increasing media attention for animals should cause an increasing interest in animal conservation. If marketed correctly, these resurrected species could generate millions of dollars for conservation efforts across the world. The triumphant rebirth of extinct species could serve as a powerful reminder of the importance of conservation and the irreversible loss of biodiversity. However, if humans can bring back extinct species, the fear of losing those that remain may fade. People may not care as much about preserving our endangered species because they believe that those species can be brought back in the blink of an eye. As a result, fewer people may donate to conservation organizations, since they might question the need to protect species that could simply be revived by scientists. Many people will not think twice about whether their decisions will affect endangered species, because in their mind, technology can save them (Valdez, R. X., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C. L., & Nils Peterson, M. 2019). In reality, de-extinction will probably have mixed results, with a combination of increased funding and decreased concern.
The final benefit of de-extinction technology lies in its ability to help rehabilitate struggling ecosystems. The woolly mammoth could help combat climate change just through its natural movements. Mammoths' walking patterns can help maintain a low ground temperature and slow the thawing of permafrost, leading to less carbon dioxide releasing into the atmosphere (Perkes 2024). However many believe that there are more risks to de-extinction than there are benefits. A major concern is whether Earth’s climate is still suitable for these animals. Given that the terrain, atmosphere, and ecosystem are different now than it was back then. So the animals may in turn suffer. Furthermore, if humans were a primary cause of extinction for a particular species, it may mean we are still a threat to their re-extinction. If the climate is suitable, scientists worry that these de-extinct species could turn into invasive species, which could cause ecological harm. Another concern is that these animals may carry prehistoric diseases. The diseases that were around thousands of years ago could be very different from the ones in our world today. The diseases that the woolly mammoths might carry could wipe out large populations or vice versa. (Valdez, R. X., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C. L., & Nils Peterson, M. 2019). Another critical concern is how the populations of these species will be regulated. For example the woolly mammoth's predators were dire wolves, cave hyenas, and large predatory cats (A-Z-Animals.com 2018). Many of the potential predators that exist today are nowhere large enough to pose a threat to the mammoths. Dire wolves were around 25% larger than the grey wolves we have today (Martin 2024). Furthermore, the Sabertooth, another predator of the woolly mammoth, was around 5’8’’ and weighed anywhere from 350-620 pounds (Martin 2024). With no viable predator to the woolly mammoth, it's possible that a population of mammoths could grow unchecked. Also, de-extinction does not take into consideration how people are going to adjust to living with these de-extinct beasts out in the wilderness, especially for remote communities. Perhaps we could place them in a tightly monitored zone, then at that point, we might as well just place them in a zoo and have them used as a marketing gig.
Overall, the current evidence does not strongly support the use of de-extinction technology for conservation or medical applications. It's crucial to recognize that these resurrected species could be viewed as a distraction to conservation efforts rather than a solution. The technology for gene editing has been available for some time, but its commercial use could be much too expensive for the average person. If conservationists are to pursue the resurrection of extinct species, they must conduct extensive research to ensure that it benefits ecosystems rather than harms them.
Works Cited:
A-Z-Animals.com. (2018). Woolly Mammoth. A-z-Animals.com. https://a-z-animals.com/animals/woolly-mammoth/
Béllo Carvalho, R. (2025). Between hype and hope: De-extinction is a tool, not a panacea for the biodiversity crisis. Biological Conservation, 309, 111307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111307
Biotechnology for conservation and de-extinction. (2021, September 13). Wyss Institute. https://wyss.harvard.edu/technology/biotechnology-for-conservation-and-de-extinction/
Company. (2021, August 6). Colossal. https://colossal.com/company/
Valdez, R. X., Kuzma, J., Cummings, C. L., & Nils Peterson, M. (2019). Anticipating risks, governance needs, and public perceptions of de-extinction. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2019.1591145
Martin, M. (2024, August 22). Dire Wolf Size Comparison. A-Z Animals. https://a-z-animals.com/animals/wolf/wolf-facts/dire-wolf-size-comparisons/
Perkes, C. (2024, February 28). De-extinction. Flux Trends. https://fluxtrends.com/de-extinction/