Wild Things | Science News

Be a Champion for Science

Get your subscription to

Science News when you join.

Wild Things

The weird and wonderful in the natural world

Sarah Zielinski

Wild Things


Wild Things

De-extinction probably isn’t worth it

woolly mammoth

Some researchers are working on science that could one day resurrect extinct species, such as the woolly mammoth. Even if they’re successful, it is probably a bad idea because it would divert conservation money away from still-living species, a new study contends.

Sponsor Message

The prospect of resurrecting mammoths is back in the news after Harvard geneticist George Church announced last month that he may be only two years away from creating a mammoth-elephant hybrid fetus. That’s still a long way from a living mammoth — let alone herds of the animals — and scientists are skeptical that Church will be successful with even a hybrid fetus. The scientific hurdles that will have to be overcome are huge.  

But the problems with de-extinction only start there. If resurrecting an extinct species is successful, scientists couldn’t stop at just one or two animals. They would have to make enough for at least one healthy-sized population. Then they would have to successfully reintroduce the species to the planet, taking care to find a place where the new-again species wouldn’t harm others and where the animals would be mostly safe from whatever drove them extinct in the first place. And those animals would then have to be managed and monitored for years.

All this costs big bucks, and it would divert already limited conservation funds away from species that have yet to go extinct but are badly in need of protection, Joseph Bennett, an ecologist at Carleton University in Ottawa, and colleagues warn in a new study. Whether government or private sources pay for such a reintroduction, other species are bound to suffer.

The financial costs of de-extinction are largely a mystery since no one has actually done it yet. But Bennett and his team wanted to get a handle on how much the reintroduction part of the process might cost — and how this might affect other conservation efforts. They turned to Australia and New Zealand for some examples.

“New Zealand and the Australian state of New South Wales are somewhat unique in the world in that they have very detailed prescriptions for all the actions necessary to save hundreds of their most threatened species,” Bennett notes.

The researchers looked for recently extinct species that were similar to living species that had conservation plans, such as the New Zealand falcon and Colenso’s forget-me-not. That let them estimate potential management costs for 11 extinct species in New Zealand and 5 in New South Wales if someone managed to resurrect them. There are no plans to bring back any of the species in the study, Bennett notes, but they make decent stand-ins for the idea in general.

The scientists then considered where the money for the reintroduction would come from. Either government agencies would handle the matter or it would be funded entirely by private sources. The researchers also considered whether those efforts could have benefits for other species in the ecosystem. For example, if successful reintroduction of a ground-dwelling bird required removing predators such as rats, that action would benefit other ground-dwelling birds in that area.

If the government had to pay for all of the costs, agencies would most likely have to divert money from other conservation efforts. And in nearly every case, that resulted in existing species losing out. Only for a small bird called the Forbes’ snipe could de-extinction potentially be a boon to other species. That’s because the actions necessary to successfully reintroduce it to the Chatham Islands off New Zealand would also benefit many of the other species that share its habitat on those islands. (Bennett warns, though, that more accurate cost estimates could erase such benefits.) For every other species considered for de-extinction, reintroduction would at best be neutral but at worst harm up to 14 existing species, the researchers report March 1 in Nature Ecology and Evolution.

If private sources footed the bill, they too would be spending money they could otherwise use for conserving other animals. So this approach would also have a cost, though not as steep a cost as with the diversion of government funds. However, introducing all five recently extinct Australian species would come at the cost of conservation efforts for 42 living ones, the researchers calculated.

But money isn’t the only part of this story. “When assessing whether or not to pursue de-extinction, calculating the conservation costs and benefits is not sufficient,” Northeastern University ethicist Ronald Sandler argues in an accompanying commentary. “It is also necessary to assess the ethical arguments for and against it — for example, those concerning justice, intrinsic value, cultural value and hubris,” he writes. For many species, the cons may add up so that de-extinction is truly a bad idea. There may be a rare species or two, though, for which there are great benefits to its return — so great that they outweigh any potential harm.

So perhaps it isn’t yet time to completely bury the idea of de-extinction. But it would seem like a good idea to consider all the pros and cons before investing millions of dollars into resurrecting something like the mammoth. Conservation funds are limited as it is. Perhaps we should devote more of them to saving the similar creatures, such as the elephant, that are still here but in great need of help.

Animals,, Oceans

Pup kidnapping has a happy ending when a seal gets two moms

By Sarah Zielinski 12:48pm, July 29, 2016
A female fur seal kidnapped another seal’s pup. But this turned out to be a positive the young seal, scientists found.
Oceans,, Ecology

Sea ice algae drive the Arctic food web

By Sarah Zielinski 1:00pm, July 26, 2016
Even organisms that don’t depend on sea ice depend on sea ice algae, a new study finds. But Arctic sea ice is disappearing.
Animals

Tiny ants move a ton of soil

By Sarah Zielinski 9:00am, July 20, 2016
For the first time, scientists have quantified how much soil ants move underground.
Animals,, Evolution

For jaguars, armored prey is no obstacle

By Sarah Zielinski 9:00am, July 15, 2016
With big heads, thick teeth and strong muscles, jaguars have evolved to take on dangerous prey, often animals covered with thick armor.
Animals

When bird populations shrink, females fly away

By Sarah Zielinski 7:41am, July 13, 2016
In small and shrinking populations of willow warblers, males outnumber females. That’s because girls choose to join bigger groups, a new study finds.
Animals

Beetles that battle make better moms than ones that never fight

By Sarah Zielinski 3:19pm, July 11, 2016
Female burying beetles that have to fight before reproducing spend more time caring for offspring than beetles with no fighting experience, a new study finds.
Animals,, Oceans

Lionfish invasion comes to the Mediterranean

By Sarah Zielinski 7:54am, July 6, 2016
Scientists had thought that the Mediterranean was too cold for lionfish to permanently settle there. But now they’ve found a population of the fish off Cyprus.
Animals

Sneaky male fiddler crabs entrap their mates

By Sarah Zielinski 7:59am, June 30, 2016
Some male banana fiddler crabs get a female to mate with them by trapping her in their burrow, a new study finds.
Animals

Bacteria make male lacewings disappear

By Sarah Zielinski 10:00am, June 24, 2016
Scientists have tracked down why some green lacewings in Japan produce only female offspring: Bacteria kill off all the males early in life.
Animals,, Evolution

Three-toed sloths are even more slothful than two-toed sloths

By Sarah Zielinski 9:00am, June 20, 2016
The three-toed sloth Bradypus variegatus has the lowest field metabolic rate ever recorded, a new study finds.
Subscribe to RSS - Wild Things