"Please Reanimate"
by Dr. George Church
Scientific American magazine
The revival of extinct species is a highly controversial topic, with compelling arguments for and against.Some recent revival efforts include the virus HERV-K and the Spanish Influenza virus.But de-extinction does not just pertain to entire organisms, it also relates to individual genes, like ancient ones for hemoglobin, which have been reproduced and studied in a lab. In this opinion piece, Dr. George Church, professor of genetics at the Harvard Medical School, argues for the great benefits this project could bring, especially in a climate-change context. He claims that the revival of long-gone species could lead to increased environmental quality. When environments are very reliant on keystone species, its extinction could wreak havoc, destroying and changing other ecological niches. By reanimating these animals, it could lead to a retreat to the old equilibrium. For instance, were the mammoths, or a mammoth-like species to be reintroduced to the Canadian and Russian tundra, it could help lessen the effects of modern climate change. This is because their grazing habits would help decreased erosion, their knocking down of trees would increase reflected light, and their disruption of snowy surfaces would expose the soil to more air. In this article, Dr. Church also discusses the potential of genetic revival in the context of endangered species. It could help expand the genetic diversity of species with few individuals, like Australia's Tasmanian Devil and Cheetahs. He concludes by saying that, "just as a new vaccine could free up medical resources that would otherwise be spent on sick patients, reanimation may be able to help conservationists by giving them powerful new tools... a possibility [that] is reason enough to explore it seriously."
Personally, I found this article incredibly fascinating! I have never read such a compelling argument for the reintroduction of extinct species into modern ecosystems. The climate-saving potential of mammoth revival could do wonders for helping the tundra, an ecosystem greatly threatened by the Earth's rising temperatures. Dr. Church also brings up a good point about how reanimation could bring about greater ecosystem stability, since keystone species vital to its function would be brought back. I also agree with the points about the potential of de-extinction for genetic diversity reasons. Many endangered species struggle with a lack of diversity within their genetic pool and the synthesis of long-gone individuals could give the species the help it needs to survive and prosper. This tactic also has potential for popularizing modern conservation. Creating an organism from ancient DNA would no doubt become a massive news story, which would increase the public's awareness for conservation, as well as affirm the values it would bring to the world. In conclusion, the benefits of reviving long-gone organisms expands beyond intellectual gain to environmental and genetic prosperity.
by Dr. George Church
Scientific American magazine
The revival of extinct species is a highly controversial topic, with compelling arguments for and against.Some recent revival efforts include the virus HERV-K and the Spanish Influenza virus.But de-extinction does not just pertain to entire organisms, it also relates to individual genes, like ancient ones for hemoglobin, which have been reproduced and studied in a lab. In this opinion piece, Dr. George Church, professor of genetics at the Harvard Medical School, argues for the great benefits this project could bring, especially in a climate-change context. He claims that the revival of long-gone species could lead to increased environmental quality. When environments are very reliant on keystone species, its extinction could wreak havoc, destroying and changing other ecological niches. By reanimating these animals, it could lead to a retreat to the old equilibrium. For instance, were the mammoths, or a mammoth-like species to be reintroduced to the Canadian and Russian tundra, it could help lessen the effects of modern climate change. This is because their grazing habits would help decreased erosion, their knocking down of trees would increase reflected light, and their disruption of snowy surfaces would expose the soil to more air. In this article, Dr. Church also discusses the potential of genetic revival in the context of endangered species. It could help expand the genetic diversity of species with few individuals, like Australia's Tasmanian Devil and Cheetahs. He concludes by saying that, "just as a new vaccine could free up medical resources that would otherwise be spent on sick patients, reanimation may be able to help conservationists by giving them powerful new tools... a possibility [that] is reason enough to explore it seriously."Personally, I found this article incredibly fascinating! I have never read such a compelling argument for the reintroduction of extinct species into modern ecosystems. The climate-saving potential of mammoth revival could do wonders for helping the tundra, an ecosystem greatly threatened by the Earth's rising temperatures. Dr. Church also brings up a good point about how reanimation could bring about greater ecosystem stability, since keystone species vital to its function would be brought back. I also agree with the points about the potential of de-extinction for genetic diversity reasons. Many endangered species struggle with a lack of diversity within their genetic pool and the synthesis of long-gone individuals could give the species the help it needs to survive and prosper. This tactic also has potential for popularizing modern conservation. Creating an organism from ancient DNA would no doubt become a massive news story, which would increase the public's awareness for conservation, as well as affirm the values it would bring to the world. In conclusion, the benefits of reviving long-gone organisms expands beyond intellectual gain to environmental and genetic prosperity.
I found your article really interesting. I hadn't known about the environmental benefits of de-extinction. I also believe it would aid in the field of research as well, perhaps also helping us understand evolution on a deeper level. What i think needs to be taken into consideration, and what's probably the biggest issue with this, is whether doing this is ethical. We've already done enough damage to the planet, perhaps this could lead to more. Or maybe not :]
ReplyDeleteI agree, its such a controversial topic, which could lead to enormous benefits or tremendous losses, on social, economics, academic, and ecological levels.
ReplyDelete