De-extinction: Back to the Future
By Shreyans Chordia
What is meant by bringing back the woolly mammoth?
The goal of this de-extinction is not to make perfect copies of extinct woolly mammoths, but to focus on the mammoth adaptations needed for Asian elephants to thrive in the cold climate of the Arctic.
Why the woolly mammoth?
The best choice would be an animal that could not only inspire people to be interested in science and technology but that also would have a net positive impact on the environment. Acc. to the company, Colossal the mammoth is one of the best candidates for de-extinction.
In America and other Western countries, the mammoth is a popular extinct animal. This would help garner public support, which is an essential part of getting this project implemented. Relying on public support and influencing public perception is a double edged sword. This could result in a divide as to what constitutes a de-extinction success for the scientists versus the public. For instance, genetically coaxing Asian elephants to behave like their extinct (Mammoth) relatives might restore the ecosystem's lost function. But is that good enough to count for the public? I don't think anyone in the world is really going to call it de-extinction unless the mammoth "looks right" (an orthogonal criteria).
Mammoths are a keystone species. They once played a key role as ecosystem engineers: They snapped trees, trampled grasses and mosses, created depressions that became ponds,
and otherwise transformed the steppe grasslands in ways that could theoretically help today’s endangered inhabitants such as the reindeer and Saiga antelope. Also this could help us fight global climate change. Some scientists believe that mammoths’ compaction of soil could slow the thawing of Arctic permafrost, which releases the greenhouse gas methane.
The opposing view is that this project would be too little, too late. Due to the fact that woolly mammoth de-extinction has too many hurdles such that it cannot make it in time to have any real impact on global climate change and saving currently endangered wild animals. Consequently, this view suggests that the money is better spent on promising interventions directly addressing climate change and endangered wild animal conservation.
Advocates for de-extinction counter that undertaking this project can result in scientific breakthroughs that could generalise across other animal species and benefit both de-extinction and existing animal (eg: wild elephant) populations. For instance, investigating how to insert genes (eg: using CRISPR) into Asian elephants could result in finding out how to instil resistance to deadly elephant herpesviruses. This would result in better animal conservation of existing elephant species. Thus, adding new tools into the arsenal for endangered wild animal conservation. This seems like a point of convergence for techno optimists (like me) and traditional animal conservationists.
A diverging view from Douglas McCauley, an ecologist at UCSB, suggests the following modified criteria are better for choosing a candidate animal for de-extinction: select target species with unique functions, concentrate on species that went extinct recently, and only work with species that can be restored to levels of abundance that meaningfully restore ecological function. McCauley rejects the woolly mammoth as it doesn't meet these criteria (explained later) and recommends that efforts should instead be focused on recently extinct animals like the Christmas Island pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus murrayi), the Réunion giant tortoise (Cylindraspis indica), and the lesser stick-nest rat (Leporillus apicalis). Although not as charismatic as a woolly mammoth, these creatures still have habitats to return to and would restore a unique function in their ecosystems. The lesser stick-nest rat, for instance, did what its name implies and built large stick nests in central Australia that became hubs of biodiversity.
So why is the Mammoth not a good candidate for de-extinction? Mammoths are adapted to Ice Age climates with average temperatures up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than today. If they return, they would be facing temperatures “much warmer than any mammoth ever experienced". Moreover, the original ecosystem of the mammoths doesn't exist in the present day. Importantly, we don't know much about the dietary and habitat requirements of mammoths, so choosing a recently extinct species would be better on both counts. In practice, reintroducing captive animals into the wild often fails even under far less exotic circumstances. These challenges for the woolly mammoth make it hard to achieve the restoration of levels of abundance (big animal herds) that meaningfully restore ecological function. Another concern is that the host animal that will be implanted with Mammoth embryos is an African elephant, which is already an endangered species. In conclusion, the woolly mammoth is too hairy a candidate for an already hairy situation of de-extinction.
There are two buckets of opposing ethical concerns about de-extinction in general:
- A slippery slope.
If de-extinction technology becomes developed and widely accessible, will people become less worried about extinction in general? After all, why go through too much trouble to save a dying species when we could just bring them back a few years later?
- Animal suffering.
Rapid aging, ongoing health problems and premature death are common among cloned animals and in extension for genetically engineered animals. Many new mammoth babies would likely suffer and die young in the early stages of de-extinction. The cloning stage also carries risks for the surrogate mothers. They have to deal with the potential trauma of repeated miscarriages, living in captivity and undergoing C-sections (not easy to perform for elephants). There will be animal captivity and resulting animal trauma.
The proponents of de-extinction counter with the argument that full, joyful lives of some future mammoth herds could arguably justify the sacrifices along the way; we may even owe it to these future mammoths.
In summary, the concept of de-extinction not only raises ethical and ecological concerns but also resonates with popular culture, echoing the iconic DeLorean's time-traveling adventures in "Back to the Future." Just as Marty McFly navigates the consequences of altering the past, humanity must carefully consider the repercussions of resurrecting species from extinction. As we stand on the brink of technological advancements that blur the lines between science fiction and reality, it's imperative that we approach de-extinction with thoughtful deliberation, recognizing its potential to shape our future in ways both wondrous and unforeseen.
This blog is part of a series of entries received for the OpenTakshashila National Science Day Blog Contest 2024 on the theme of ‘Scientists are bringing the woolly mammoth back - should they?’ The blog is republished with permission. The views belong to the author(s) and do not represent Takshashila’s position on the issue.
