Introduction
The most pressing question that arises from the company’s consideration of a venture in the field of de-extinction is whether people have a duty to mitigate some of the harm caused by human-driven extinctions. With the help of advancements in DNA editing technology, such as CRISPR-Cas9, the field of de-extinction has made significant progress (Fox-Skelly, 2023). Today, scientists can sequence the DNA of extinct species and attempt to resurrect them by modifying the genes of their closest living relatives. Discussions on the moral implications of recovering extinct creatures have resulted from this strategy.
Arguments in Favor
Three main justifications can be found overall in favor of de-extinction. First, the de-extinction of keystone species, such as apex predators like the thylacine, could aid in the restoration of ecosystems that their extinction has damaged. The environment as a whole may benefit from this restoration.
Second, highly endangered species with limited gene pools could be saved through de-extinction technologies, preventing their extinction. Third, some contend that it is a human moral obligation to make up for the harm caused by extinctions triggered in the past. De-extinction can be seen as a type of restitution because human activity led to the extinction of species like the thylacine.
Arguments Against
Three arguments can all be made in opposition to bringing back extinct species at the same time. First, reintroducing extinct species could cause existing ecosystems to become unstable. Potentially harmed are species that have developed to occupy ecological niches left vacant by extinct animals.
Second, the ecosystems that these extinct species formerly called home have changed as a result of climate change and habitat loss. Questions concerning the long-term survival of extinct species may arise as they struggle to adjust to these changes (McMahon & Doyle, 2020). Third, some contend that funding for de-extinction efforts would be better spent on protecting already endangered species and tackling their primary causes, such as habitat destruction and climate change.
Conclusion
The company is advised to exercise prudence in the de-extinction enterprise, taking into account the ethical implications, prospective advantages, and risks. Due to the thylacine’s recent extinction, undamaged habitat, and significant contribution to its ecosystem, it would be prudent in this circumstance. The business should investigate the application of de-extinction technologies for conservation, especially for genetically homogeneous endangered species. This strategy supports the overarching objective of preserving biodiversity and averting extinctions.
References
Fox-Skelly, J. (2023). How extinct animals could be brought back from the dead. BBC Future.
McMahon, A., & Doyle, D. M. (2020). Patentability and de-extinct animals in Europe: The patented woolly mammoth?. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), 1-28.