This post is part of KQED’s Do Now U project. Do Now U is a biweekly activity for students and the public to engage and respond to current issues using social media. Do Now U aims to build civic engagement and digital literacy for learners of all ages. This post was written by Justine Stewart, Ryan Kirchner, Justin Marquez and Jenna Molesko, students in Melanie Lenahan’s General Biology class at Raritan Valley Community College.


Featured Media Resource
VIDEO: NBC News

Scientist Tries To Bring The Woolly Mammoth Back From The Dead
A Harvard scientist discusses the possibility of reviving extinct species, and the impacts that could have on our planet and on science as we know it.


Do Now U

Should we bring back extinct species? #DoNowURevive


How to Do Now

To respond to the Do Now U, you can comment below or post your response on Twitter. Just be sure to include #DoNowURevive and @KQEDedspace in your posts.


Learn More About De-Extinction

For many Jurassic Park fanatics, seeing dinosaurs roam the Earth again would be a dream come true. But what if modern science could make that dream a reality? While dinosaur resurrection may not be in our immediate future, scientists are currently exploring the revival of more recently extinct species. There are a few different methods being investigated for “de-extinction,” but all pose the same questions: Is it worth the time and the money to bring extinct species back? Is it our moral obligation to bring back extinct species that have died off as a result of human activities like deforestation? What would be the implications?

Some scientists say revival of ancient species like the woolly mammoth could help repopulate the barren tundra, creating a thriving ecosystem and reducing the magnitude of climate change.

Supporters of de-extinction say that it could improve the environment. Scientist Sergey Zimov believes that by splicing woolly mammoth DNA into a close relative of the species, we could create a hybrid creature similar to the woolly mammoth to reintroduce to the tundra. This could repopulate the area, encouraging the revival of ancient grasslands, which could slow the rate of melting permafrost and, therefore, reduce carbon emissions. This process, theoretically, could slow the process of global warming. The same technology used for de-extinction–inserting DNA of living species into the DNA of close genetic relatives–could be used to help populate species that are currently endangered, or to diversify the gene pool of species with little genetic variation, leaving populations less susceptible to viruses, bacterial infections and disease. Proponents of reviving species also say that being able to observe living, breathing organisms that roamed the Earth in ancient times could provide scientific insight into Earth’s past. By researching the way these animals are structured and how they function, we could make inferences about the ecosystems they thrived in and the conditions that drove them to extinction, maybe even filling in some of the gaps in evolutionary theory.

Would the option of bringing back extinct species give humans less pause about destroying delicate ecosystems?

Opponents of bringing back extinct species think that it may make people less concerned about  future environmental destruction. Human activities like deforestation continue to cause extreme ecosystem fragmentation and obliteration. Many species have gone extinct as a result a rapidly changing environments and destruction of very delicate ecosystems. If we develop a way to bring back extinct species, people may not be as worried because even if a species dies out, we could always bring them back. However, if a species that went extinct due to habitat destruction was revived, there wouldn’t be natural habitat in which they could live. The animals may have to be taken care of in protected lands. Lastly, we don’t know the environmental impacts of bringing back extinct species. Would they be invasive? If there weren’t predators for this species, it could become overpopulated. Alternatively, it could become a “new” predator and wipe out other species. Just because an extinct species once had a niche in the world, doesn’t mean it does today.

What do you think? Are you in favor of de-extinction? Why or why not?


More Resources

Website: Revive and Restore
Candidate Species for De-Extinction
See a list of species that scientists working on de-extinction see as possible contenders (or not) and learn why.

Article: New York Times
We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?
Read about the reasons some scientists are putting efforts toward reviving extinct species and why other scientists think that it’s just wasteful spending of money.

Video: KQED
Reawakening Extinct Species
Learn about the growing efforts to bring back extinct species. including the passenger pigeon and woolly mammoth.


Find best practices for using Do Now, using Twitter for teaching, and using other digital tools.


KQED Do Now U is a biweekly activity in collaboration with SENCER. SENCER is a community of transformation that consists of educators and administrators in the higher and informal education sectors. SENCER aims to create an intelligent, educated, and empowered citizenry through advancing knowledge in the STEM fields and beyond. SENCER courses show students the direct connections between subject content and the real world issues they care about, and invite students to use these connections to solve today’s most pressing problems.

Should We Bring Back Extinct Species? 14 July,2017SENCER

  • Stone Dennison

    If it is true that bringing back extinct species may help our environment, we should weight the pros and cons accordingly. My question is why? Why do we need to use the resources to bring back animals that could not adapt fast enough to survive their environment. I believe the argument that bringing back animals such as the mammoth would help against global warming is not looking at the actual cause of global warming. According to a report by the United Nations, 51% of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere are due to animal agriculture. This is about 3 times more than cars and transportation… Therefore, perspective is needed. I do not believe we need to waste resources to repopulate a inferior species of animal. #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

    • Owen Smith

      I agree with your skepticism towards the environmental benefits of resurrecting lost species. I do not see a real connection between the two. It is ignorant to believe that bringing Woolly Mammoths back from the dead will revitalize our environment. However, I do not believe that this is reason enough to simply give up on this idea. Research should be continued until there are absolutely no doubts, and from there we should precede. However, I agree with you in the fact that this may be a bad idea, and that we should thoroughly weigh both the pros and cons of this scenario before continuing.
      #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

  • Owen Smith

    My stance on this issue is very wishy-washy, and I find myself having a hard time really associating strongly with either side of the argument. This is because I can understand certain points made from both sides. One area where I do have a firm and resounding opinion is on more recently extinct species. Species that went extinct due to the activities and damages of mankind. We should feel morally responsible for those species’ exodus from our existence. In cases such as these, I feel as though we should spend the time and the resources to attempt to bring them back. There is also a negative to this though, as this new found power to resurrect the dead may in fact make us even less sensitive towards the other species that we coexist with. We will have far less regret with killing off a certain animal, for we could simply reinvent them later. I do not fully support the idea of attempting to bring back Woolly Mammoths or actually create a Jurassic Park. I simply fail to see the reward for the costs that are involved. This is such a complex issue with so many unseen complications that could arise, that I have a hard time placing myself behind one side of the argument, seeing as either side could be detrimentally incorrect. If we do end up going through with it, only time will tell if it was the correct choice.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/science/revive-restore-extinct-species-dna-mammoth-passenger-pigeon.html?_r=0
    #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

    • Ryan Sotelo

      I agree with your post! There are some strong arguments for de-extinction but the negatives definitely outweigh the positives. The question of if there would be adequate natural habitat or it becoming a territorial problem with no natural predator; along with having a cost to living species and a massive cost for funding, there are enough reasons to rethink de-exctinction. #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

    • Amardeep Atwal

      You bring up a lot of good points and I agree with all of them. I think that bringing back animals that we have personally been responsible for killing off may be a great thing to do but like you said, it can also lead to us being desensitized and not caring about the species that are still alive with us. Bringing back mammoths or or other pre-historic animals doesn’t make sense to me either. There’s no way they could be re-introduced into their environment without dramatically affecting it.
      #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

    • devinn bradford

      I think we have far more issues that deserve attention in this world and country than focusing on if we can bring extinct animals back. #MyCmstArgs #DoNowURevive

      • Nanci Contreras

        There are other species and some habitats that are hurt by the extinction of certain species. For this reason, I think we shouldn’t dismiss the idea of bringing back some species #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

    • Eva Gonzalez

      I completely agree ! but don’t you agree it would be really awesome to bring back extinct species that we have never met? I like that idea, but before we do that lets restore our own ecosystem. #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs @2ndheartmom

  • Kelsey Bridewell

    Wow!! This is incredible. I believe this is something worth pursuing for our global climate change dilemma. I am concerned for the well being and general health of these animals if they were to be resurrected. There would be some minor displacement of these animals for awhile I would presume, and who’s to say these scientists could change the elephant DNA enough to actually create a wooly mammoth able to resist the cold. Dr. George Church, a Professor of Genetics at Harvard, stated in the above video that tests have been conducted in Siberia in which the hypothesis that these animals would prolong the nearing problem of carbon release from the Tundra, and the result was that temperature decreased by a significantly high amount of 20 degrees. This would certainly aid in the problem that the Tundra is melting and if it melts enough very high amounts of carbon dioxide will be released into the air causing a spike in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and raising global climate temperature even more. I think this is definitely a solution, and a pretty cool innovation, to pursue. #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

    • 3beaunabelle

      I agree with you. This link talks about how when wolves were returned to Yellowstone, Elk populations were reduced which allowed for trees to come back. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/wolves-greenthumbs-yellowstone/
      This is s slightly different take because we didn’t “create” wolves we just reintroduced them to an area. It does show how it can be good for the overall ecosystem.

      • Hillary Clintub

        Not so good for the elk, though. Think the elk would vote for reintroducing wolves?

        • 3beaunabelle

          Definitely not, however in this instance with the balance impacted by human events (killing of the wolves) the elk were impacting the overall biodiversity of the park. And Trees create oxygen. The elk don’t get a vote. This was a situation where human intervention created a problem and human intervention was able to fix the problem.

          • Hillary Clintub

            So now we’re gonna let the wolves kill off all the elk. Alpha predators always impact the balance. Every ecosystem has an alpha predator, human or not. Personally, I kinda like being the alpha predator on the planet. Beats the heck outta being the alpha prey. We humans, though, are still in close competition with viruses for the honor of being the alpha predator.

          • 3beaunabelle

            Since wolves and elk co-existed before, I think we can safely assume the wolves will not kill off ALL the elk. Nature has a way of balancing these things. If wolves kill and eat too many elk there will be less in the following years and thus less wolves will survive (as they will have less to eat) and the elk population will spring back. And the cycle will continue. The only time the cycle is thrown off is when something (generally humans) removes a link from the chain.
            And to answer your question from the other comment thread, humans killed wolves unnecessarily to protect their grazing livestock. Humans did not eat the meat, they did not use the fur pelts, they did not in any way consume the killed animals. That is “unnecessary killing” as I see it. Most predators only kill what they need to survive. Killing more than you need is not the way to maintain the earth for humans or any other species.
            Nature does maintain a balance, maybe not by some magic puppet string puller but just by design. (Like the wolf example above).

    • Yasmin Gonzalez

      If the scientists aren’t able to make them resistant to the cold wouldn’t this just cause them to go extinct all over again? I agree this is a cool innovation but there is a lot of other things that we can do to help prevent climate change that don’t include manipulating an asian elephants DNA into a mammoths. I think there is just going to be a lot of risks and unknowns going along with this and it just seems unnatural. An upside would be the climate change help and learning more about genetics but do those things outweigh the negatives and risks that may come about? #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

    • Stone Dennison

      I would like to point out that the degree that these animals better the environment is marginal at best. According to the United Nations, 51% of greenhouse emissions are related to animal agriculture. If you would like to make a impact for the better, stop consuming animal products. Otherwise the argument for the global climate change dilemma is valid, just very weak. Anyways, here is an article about bringing back species it is a decent article.. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/ #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

  • Hillary Clintub

    Sounds like one of those B grade sci-fi horror flicks where a plane crashes in a remote jungle and the survivors find themselves besieged by dinosaurs or other incredible lifeforms. Extinction is natural. Bringing them back is not. Go read Mary Shelley’s book again.

    • 3beaunabelle

      While I see your point, some animals provide a necessary link in the food chain that helps contain a lower link. This helps everyone. And I’m not sure that extinction is “natural” especially if it’s manmade extinction.

      • Hillary Clintub

        It makes no difference whether an extinction is man made, wolf made or virus made, the result is still according to nature and it’s all the same. Something has to eat the last member of a species or else it would all go to waste. Nature hates waste. Every living plant or animal on the planet is here to be eaten by some other animal or plant…thank goodness.

        • 3beaunabelle

          I’m not suggesting that animals and plants should not eat each other. I’m saying that man kills many things unnecessarily. Which is waste. And I’m not sure I understand you logic for eating the last member of a species. It’s very clear that nature love biodiversity. There is nothing that shows in a natural state (without human intervention) nature encourages or allows the elimination of species.
          And if we do not do something to reverse the damage we have done in the past then eventually the only thing that will be left is the trees, which don’t need any other living thing to survive.

          • Hillary Clintub

            I don’t think humans intervened very much in the extinction of the dinosaurs. I could be wrong, though.

          • Hillary Clintub

            3b, I guess I just woke up in a strange mood this morning. I don’t really want to start an argument but I would kind of like to have a discussion about this subject. I often find it puzzling as to how and why people try to impute things to nature that just aren’t there…such as morality, emotion, purpose…and, yes, even the idea of “necessity”. I have to say, I don’t understand how you decided that man kills “unnecessarily”. A lot of things kill “unnecessarily”. An avalanche or a flood kills “unnecessarily”. Who but man decides what’s necessary and what isn’t? The universe would still go on if the whole earth fell into the sun this afternoon. Why do people try to blame humans for the actions of nature? Do some people just have a “guilt gene” that overrides their logic? Seems to me that any logic that overrides a species’ survival instinct would be counterproductive. Intentionally bringing back extinct species that would compete with us for resources, or even try to kill us, would be illogical in my book. I would ask anyone here to name a single creature or plant that’s ever gone extinct that we later found was “necessary” to anyone’s survival.

  • Yasmin Gonzalez

    I do not think that we should bring up extinct animals. I think that evolution along with extinction happens for a reason I’m not saying we shouldn’t try our best to save animals at the brink of extinction but those that are already gone should be left that way. I think that there can be a lot of unknowns if this is to be done and I don’t think its necessary to do so. yes, this would be an amazing unbelievable thing that I didn’t think would even be possible but it just seems unnatural. I understand how this could potentially help our climate problems but there is so many other things we can do to help our climate that do not include reviving an extinct animal. http://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/ revivestori.org gives a few more reasons for the purpose of brining mammoths back but ultimately I think we need to consider any negatives that may come about or if there is too many unknowns that could put us at risk. #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

    • Trevor Ramsey

      It is true that evolution and extinction go hand in hand. Whether natural or man-made events were responsible for the extinction it did happen for a reason. The constant evolution of species is what drive life on Earth. While humans should try and avoid accelerating extinction, we would not be where we are today if not for natural selection. #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

  • Ryan Sotelo

    I don’t think that de-extinction is the solution for conservation. There is already a limited amount of funding towards conservation efforts and to de-exctint a species is a figure that is not known but is estimated to go toward 10 Million dollars or more. This could result in 4 species being extinct for the resurrection of 1 past species, “It would be one step forward, and three to eight steps back.” as stated by Dr. Bennet who is an assistant professor and conservation researcher at Carleton University in Ontario. (New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/science/revive-restore-extinct-species-dna-mammoth-passenger-pigeon.html). There is a lack of funding and the potential to cause more extinctions, conservation efforts have a long list of efforts that could be funded, and many living species that should be defended rather than trying to bring other species back to life. There are a lot of arguments that make sense why it should happen such as having private funding for de-excintion. There are a lot of factors to keep in mind when considering the resurrection of an extinct species, and a majority of them point more toward the negative aspects. #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

    • Ciana Bell

      I agree, the funds for de excitation are extremely high. The funds that would be going towards de extinction should be used to help conserve the species that already roam our earth. We should be working to better the living environments for plants and animals, not introducing new species to our world. I feel as though we are constantly trying to bring things back from the past, rather than working on the present. De Extinction, in my opinion, is a terrible idea and I do not feel that it would be a benefit to our world. I hope that this is realized by others and science does not try to “show off” for the world.

  • Trevor Ramsey

    According to Briticannica.com extinctions are a result of natural or man-made events that appear on both a large and small scale. Local extinctions are results of habitat loss and over hunting. While species may still be alive in isolated regions the overall health of the global population is suffering dramatically. Global extinctions are commonly results of a larger threat such as climate change. Until recently a species that has reached global extinction was thought to be lost forever, but with the help of scientists, attempts are being made to bring them back from the grave. I believe that once a species has reached global extinction it should stay that way. It became extinct for a reason right? Whether from the inability to adapt to a changing climate or consumed as food for a more dominant species, there was a reason behind the extinction. The constant evolution of new species to replace those that have become extinct is what life is all about. Survival of the fittest has ruled since the dawn of time, so why should we go against the norm and resurrect those who could not cope? #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs
    Source: https://www.britannica.com/science/extinction-biology

    • Tt

      I totally agree. Evolution requires some species to die off in order to promote growth of another or to allow for changes within the ecosystem. To bring back and reintroduce an extinct specious is the equivalent of introducing an invasive species. They no longer have a niche in the ecosystem and we should not be putting the power into human hands when nature has been doing it since the beginning. #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

    • Jace Cuneo

      I agree with you for the most part. I am just torn when coming to resurrecting a creature, later in the future when other alive animals are taken care of, and there is more funding of course, that can improve the environment or catch rats in overpopulated areas. But there is no way I am in support of bringing back extinct species for human entertainment.
      #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

  • Tt

    I stand with not bringing back extinct species, at least on a large scale. To reintroduce an extinct species into a habitat could completely throw off the balance of the ecosystem. They are no longer a native species as the environments they once lived in have evolved and adapted to new changes overtime. Did we learn nothing from Jurassic Park? Bringing back extinct species poses a huge threat to human populations, as well as ecosystems that are not equipped to handle the abrupt introduction of a species that was previously extinct. We are not the synthetic creators of life nor should we be playing our hand at such. In order to reach balance within an ecosystem, species adapt and evolve to fit its needs. Those that fit and adapt well survive and thrive and those that do not die off. The cost of reintroducing five extinct species, not including the cost to engineer them, was similar to saving more than eight times as many living species. If were going to put money towards the conservation animals, lets save the current animals endangered and facing extinction before bringing back species that no longer have an ecosystem to return to. #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/science/revive-restore-extinct-species-dna-mammoth-passenger-pigeon.html?_r=1

  • Ciana Bell

    I can understand peoples fascination with the idea of bringing back extinct species, however I do not think this is something we should be concerning ourselves with. Rather than trying to bring back the already extinct species, we should be working to help endangered and other species across the world to remain alive by bettering their living environments. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, “our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals” this is something we should be working to end, rather than trying to bring back the already extinct (online source). Furthermore, it is known that”extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. [However] scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day” (Online Source). These facts that I have provided further strength my claim that we should be allocating funds towards helping to save the species which are endangered, not bringing back the extinct species. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/
    #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

    • Katrina Bjork

      I totally agree with you when you say we should focus more on the animals going extinct now rather than forgetting about them and trying the bring other species back from the dead. We need to stop messing with mother nature and start taking care of our planet.
      #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

  • Jace Cuneo

    I would like to a agree with bringing Mammoths and Triceratops back, but I just cannot agree if doing so comes at the cost of other animal species. Even though it is a good argument about the reduced permafrost emission into the environment. But freakin money is the issue here. Conservation funds are very limited already and I think we need to worry about saving creatures, like the elephant, that are alive before we can go investing millions into what could be a good idea. According to https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/de-extinction-probably-isnt-worth-it there are maybe only a handful of extinct creatures where the positive effects would outweigh the negative effects. I think we should research what extinct animals would have a positive effect environmentally for the future when we have already taken care of the creatures that are still breathing.
    #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

    • Grace Gerberich

      I agree! We need to stick to giving our full attention to those animals who are currently struggling. Once we establish all endangered species as no longer endangered, then we can resume to discuss the idea of bringing back extinct species. If we jump the gun, bringing back these species can completely mess with our ecosystems that are or aren’t flourishing. #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

  • Grace Gerberich

    Although I find the idea of bringing back extinct species to be extremely fascinating, I don’t find the idea to be necessary. Instead of working hard in experimenting with species who have been long gone, we should put forth a strong, consistent effort in helping those species who are endangered as well as improving the environment for species who are essential on this earth. By bringing back already extinct species we will be fooling with the natural order of extinction that actually occurs at a natural rate of 1-5 species per year. Also bringing back these species can completely throw off the balance of our already changing ecosystems. #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs http://www.nationalgeographic.com/deextinction/

    • John Ramirez

      I agree with you, I feel like if we bring back animals that lived in times where the air was cleaner and there were no buildings might be a problem. Like you said we need to start focusing in the environment we have now and finding a way to maintain it for the next generations. #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

  • Andrea Azevedo

    This seems to be a really bad idea for a few reasons. There is a reason all of these animals are extinct and I don’t think we should be spending any money on trying to bring them back. What I do think we need to pay more attention to instead of bringing up the past is the animals currently living on this planet. We have SO many issues with extinction and animal abuse in this world today that we could be paying attention too. Let’s talk about things like elephant poaching and the use of horses for horse drawn carriages. WE are the cause of animals going extinct so we should be focusing on keeping them alive in the first place. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/elephants/african_elephants/afelephants_threats/ #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

  • John Ramirez

    I do not think we should bring back old species. I do understand that there are some benefits, however I do not see them outweighing the bad. For once I think that these species lived during different times and conditions. Bringing them back might just disrupt the eco-system. Secondly, I feel like they would not be able to survive, like someone had mentioned we should probably use this tool to help those animals that are recently extinct or in risk of instinction. I feel like instead of bringing animals back we should focus on fixing and maintaining the ecosystem we live in now.

  • Katrina Bjork

    After reading this article, I could see why people would agree with both sides. If scientist are saying that bringing back species that have been extinct for decades could slow down global warming, thats great. Although scientist could be wrong in their research. I could also see why people would say this is a bad idea. It’s not promised that bringing these animals back to Earth would solve anything for our planet and potentially having Jurassic park actually happen is very scary. In my opinion, I don’t think we should mess around with mother nature more than we already do now. Scientist McCauley in an article states, “Honestly, the thing that scares me most is that the public absorbs the misimpression that extinction is no longer scary,” he says. “That the mindset becomes: Deforest, no biggie, we can reforest. If we drive something extinct, no biggie, we can de-extinct it. (Science AAAS). People need to start caring more about what we do to our Earth before putting more species on it.
    #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/should-we-bring-extinct-species-back-dead

    • Seryna Valencia

      I agree with all of your points. I am kind of caught in the middle too! The biggest concern for me is our planet. If we are trying to save it with these species, that is great but if we bring them here for no reason then that is wrong because we probably wont be able to support them. Animal rights is also a huge part of this argument that has not really been disused but I am sure that if it becomes a reality then we will have a whole other ball game. #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

  • Braden D

    I think it would be awesome to see some of these prehistoric animals rom the earth again. But we are loosing species day by day. One of the most important being coral. We need to focus on bringing back and improving endangered species before we go around brining back animals that have been gone for quite sometime. If we have the power to bring back an animal that has been frozen in permafrost for millions of years we can easily double the bee and coral population and tree population. Coral is one of the most efficient water producers around and if we could double it to help remove more CO2 from the environment it would be much better for the world. If we could find an animal that ate trash we would solve so many ocean pollution problems by simply cloning them.

    https://www.coris.noaa.gov/about/what_are/

    • Kyle Robins

      I agree with you Braden. It would be magnificent and amazing to see prehistoric animals roam the Earth again. Every time I am in a museum and see the fossils of these incredible creatures, I get jealous that I couldn’t see them in person. Here is the opportunity to do so! Although problems will be created from this, I know that mankind will find a way to create a solution. #doNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

  • Seryna Valencia

    I think that if these extinct species can service and thrive with their surroundings then why shouldn’t thy be brought back? I would love to see more and learn more amount animals of our past. Seeing one would be incredible I believe. However, there is that fuzzy line of what is too far they are clearly existing for a reason. Maybe we should leave them that way. I guess my opinion on this is only based on Jurassic park. Very cool and exciting idea but many people we eaten and carious broke out ending in catastrophe. Maybe i lie more on the “leave them the way are side”. Messing with mother nature can have serious consequences so perhaps its just better if we don’t. Discover magazine said this:”If an extinct animal were brought back to life in the lab, the authors point out that it would still lack many of a species’ key characteristics, such as epigenetics, environment and social groups. Plus it would bring along with it a number of complicated legalities relating to the Endangered Species Act and patent laws. And that doesn’t even get into the messy world of if and how such resurrections should be regulated.”
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2013/04/04/5-reasons-to-bring-back-extinct-animals-and-5-reasons-not-to/#.WQQfXvnyvIU
    #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

  • Kyle Robins

    Not only would it be absolutely awesome to have de-extinction, some scientists believe it would be good for the environment. I have always been fascinated with advancements in science and technology and will never be one to hinder it’s progress. I believe that we should strive to achieve all that we can achieve. Through our progress we will create big problems for ourselves but we will also create big solutions. I fully support this! #doNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

    • Juan Benitez

      I agree with your points. But myself personally I am still stuck in the middle. Your points really stick out to me as to why we should go ahead and bring them back. #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

  • Amardeep Atwal

    While it would be interesting to see Mammoths or other extinct species alive again, this project might lead to unknown consequences. These animals are extinct for a variety of reasons but the biggest seems to be the lack of a habitat for them. Simply re-making the animal will not recreate their habitat as well. Unleashing a brand new animal into a habitat and especially one as large as a mammoth will drastically affect the local habitat which may even lead to more extinctions. We could just keep these animals in zoos where the temperature and surroundings can be controlled but then the question arises whether or not these animals could even survive there. Keeping them in zoos may also lead to emotional distress like what has been witnessed with marine mammals in recent years. #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/science/revive-restore-extinct-species-dna-mammoth-passenger-pigeon.html?_r=0

  • Juan Benitez

    Although bringing back extinct animals sounds like a great idea in itself. It may prove costly to their health. There are a number of reasons which caused their extinctions. So what makes us think that they would be able to adequately survive on their own. I think that if they were to be brought back, it would have to be under controlled conditions and environment. #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

    • Tori Mancuso

      I made this same point. The conditions in which we lived and they once lived differ greatly. It’s hard to believe they would even have a chance to survive in today’s world. Where would they live freely? This then poses many questions to our safety, health, and environment. #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

  • devinn bradford

    I think this idea is fairly silly in my books. Even though this sounds like “fun”, we have much bigger problems to worry about than trying to bring back extinct species. We have problems such as racism, discrimination, healthcare, foster care, money not being given to schools, finding a cure for certain diseases and things of this nature to worry about. People are focused on trying to do all the things we do not need to do. This would cost way too much money that could be used elsewhere and way too much time. I do not agree with this ideology. #MyCmstArgs #DoNowURevive

  • Justis Haruo Kusumoto

    Despite potential risks with de-extinction practices outlined in the KQED and New York Times articles, it seems that the potential benefits could possibly outweigh any potential risks outlined. As the New York Times article https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/science/revive-restore-extinct-species-dna-mammoth-passenger-pigeon.html?_r=0 points out, 20% of existing species on Earth face extinction, and so any attempts to revive or restore prehistoric animals should be carefully balanced with conservation efforts to help existing species. However, this is a delicate balance, and as far as cost-effectiveness is concerned, it is far easier to conserve existing endangered populations than it is to introduce new genetically modified/engineered populations, not taking into account the massive expenditures of genetic engineering. However, proponents, including notable and reputable scientists, have pointed out that careful, scientific cost-benefit analyses are used when considering genetically engineering and introducing new species that were previously extinct or based off of previous extinct populations into a new region or ecosystem.

  • Nanci Contreras

    Some species going extinct has a big effect on the environment and species that depend on these species. For these kinds of species, we should be trying to explore ways to bring them back. However, if we want to do it simply for show or entertainment that could potentially result in more negative effects than good, this is a bad idea. #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs

  • Tori Mancuso

    Anyone who has seen the Jurassic Park movies should be shaking their heads. We were given a portrayal of what can potentially happen if we do such a thing and the effects were clear. We do not truly know the characteristics and lifestyles of the animals that once roamed the Earth. The Earth as we they knew it was completely different back then so it’s hard to believe these animals would have a chance of survival in modern day anyhow. Too often we try and “play God” when we should really just let things be. Though scientists see some potential positive environmental changes, these speculations are merely theories. We wouldn’t want to bite off something bigger than we can chew and end up harming our modern day environment. In the end we truly can never be sure of what may happen. Not to mention the fact that these animals will first be held in captivity and studied for years when we already have many problems with zoos. #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs http://www.theology21.com/2011/06/14/when-scientists-play-god-how-far-is-too-far/

    • Luke Williams

      I agree I thought of Jurassic Park immediately and thought to myself why would we ever want to bring back extinct animals. The animals are extinct for a reason. I agree we try and play god too much and we should let things play out naturally.

      #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

  • Kurt thialfad

    How about bringing back the elephant and the giraffe?

  • Luke Williams

    Why would we even want to bring back extinct animals? Has anybody heard of Jurassic Park? Yes it is a dramatic hollywood production but the concept is very realistic. How can we control something we’ve never seen live before? I can understand the curiosity behind this and bringing back animals we may lose soon sounds like a good idea but if we start reviving some animals people will want to bring back more and more crazy things and put us at risk. I feel we should be using our resources on fixing our problems at hand.
    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/04/species-revival-bringing-back-extinct-animals/

    #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

    • Morgan Reams

      I thought the same exact thing when I read this. Bringing back ancient extinct species can have horrible consequences. It seems cool and exciting but that would be a disaster. On the other hand, I think that animals that have gone extinct due to human interference should have a chance to be brought back. #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

  • Eva Gonzalez

    I am a huge fan of dinosaurs, and if we have the technology to do it why not? I am hesitant, but it would be amazing to have these extinct species back. How about bringing back species that help our eco-system (excluding evasive species). We can use this technology for good, we can even reintroduce grizzly bears to California!! (since its on our republic of California flag). We have several issues in the world, but we can’t fix all of them… having this technology now and resurrecting extinct species is an awesome idea! My only hope is that we resurrect species we need in our ecosystem (RESTORE THE GREAT BARRIER RIEF). We have so much power, to do some good in the world… then we can focus on resurrecting cool species, lets focus on bringing back or saving those animals on the verge of extinction or have been already extinct. #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs @2ndheartmom

    • Roxanne Galdos

      I’m not sure I totally agree with bringing back dinosaurs, but I think it could potentially be very beneficial to bring back species that help our eco-system and those whose extinction has broken up food chains and disrupted the natural flow of biome life. Not only could this technology help bring back species that have gone extinct, it could possible help other species and animals out of endangerment! #MyCMSTArgs

  • Morgan Reams

    When I initially read the title of this Do Now topic I thought no no no no no. Of course it would be amazing to see dinosaurs walking around with us but if we think about it there is a reason that these species are extinct. In the case of dinosaurs I would wholeheartedly say no, but when we’re talking about species that have gone extinct because of human interference I think that is another story. There would obviously need to be some kind of regulation when it comes to making experimental artificial life. Since we obviously aren’t going to stop ruing the earth any time soon I think we almost owe it to these species to give them another chance. Hunting and deforestation and climate change have greatly affected a plethora of species on earth who didn’t ask to die or be killed off by humans. I think that this issue is way bigger than something we can simply discuss over a Do Now but it is definitely something that needs to be considered as an option for the future. #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

    • j tech46

      I agree that it would be good to give species which humans have annihilated another chance, but only if it won’t negatively affect the ones we still have. It would be a shame if we brought a species back, just to have it outperform and endanger a species that was perfectly fine before we interfered.
      #MyCMSTArgs

  • Roxanne Galdos

    I have conflicting views with this topic. On one hand I think it would be very beneficial to revive certain species that have gone extinct. But I do have a problem with the type of animals that scientist are currently interested in reviving. Wooly mammoths have been extinct for over thousands of year, this being said I don’t believe their revival will have as strong of an impact on the environment and could possibly result in unforeseen negative consequences. But other animals that have gone extinct within the last 20-50 years could prove to be extremely beneficial to “bring back to life”. The extinction of animals like the California grizzly bear, Western black rhino, and Javan tiger have created a ripple effect that has harmed the ecosystem and altered the food chain/food web that they were once a part of. Bringing these animals back to life could potentially help save certain ecosystem biomes while also preventing the endangerment or extinction of surrounding species. But like this article has presented, many of the animals that have gone extinct within the last decade have died off due to deforestation and habitat destruction. So it’s questionable as to where these animals will return to once brought back to life. https://www.thoughtco.com/why-it-matters-when-species-go-extinct-1182006 #MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive

  • j tech46

    This issue really made me think hard, and for awhile I couldn’t decide which side I should take. I do think that the idea of bringing back extinct species like the mammoth is super cool. However, we should take priority over protecting species that haven’t gone extinct yet. If the funding is private, then there’s no problem. Otherwise, I don’t think it’s the best use of money. The exception would be if the de-extinction of a species would actually somehow benefit or stabilize an ecosystem. Also, if de-extinction does come about, there needs to be some very intensive studies done to make sure reintroducing a previously extinct species won’t accidentally damage the environments they’re placed in.

    https://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_the_dawn_of_de_extinction_are_you_ready#t-1014908

    • Keely Baccus

      I agree with you. I think that if anything these scientists need to start out with a small species and go from there. Study the effects of a de-extinct bird, insect, or other small animal and then decide if they should move forward. I also agree that focusing on prevent extinction today is more important than bringing back animals from the past. #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

  • Keely Baccus

    This seems to be a little irresponsible in my opinion. I don’t see how it is wise to bring back a species if it’s natural habitat has been destroyed. If an animal has to rely on simulated habitats I don’t feel like it will thrive. It also seems like a bad idea to bring back animals that have been extinct since the ice age. We have a completely different climate now. Even if woolly mammoth would help slow the deterioration of the tundra I highly doubt it would stop it, and once their new habitat has been destroyed where will the go? This seems like a lot of money being poured into research just to see if they can do it and not thinking about what will happen after it is done. I can see the possible benefits though. I believe they should start with something small first though, like the Cuban Red Macaw see how it effects the environment and if it is living healthy. I do not think these scientists should go head first with a woolly mammoth. http://reviverestore.org/candidates/ #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs

    • Jess Elm 🐙

      These are all really good points that I didn’t initially think of. The climate is warming up, which means that a hairy animal likely wouldn’t do well in it, and like you pointed out, may help the problem but not exactly fix it. The current way the planet is going is water is continuously rising, wildfires, and severe storms getting worse. But do you think it would be worth it to try it out or just assume it wouldn’t work? http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming? #MyCMSTArgs gclid=Cj0KEQjwmIrJBRCRmJ_x7KDo-9oBEiQAuUPKMtK6OwR5JsuqH5_y2GkYUkjJ-2zQml6CNys8WvHMLZEaAt_P8P8HAQ#.VH4LFU0tCHs?s_src=promo&s_subsrc=googleads

    • Lauren Davis

      I like your idea and where your headed with this, not totally against it but should probably start small first to see where everything goes.
      #DoNowURevive #myCMSTArgs @2ndheartmom

  • Jess Elm 🐙

    Although I don’t like the idea of supporting something because of our failures to initially save the planet from different green house gases, I do think it is a good idea. We should definitely focus at the main issue at hand. However, if these animals could help slow down permafrost, it would be really good for the current state of things. Permafrost is a thick, always frozen, piece of soil. Within the permafrost is high levels of methane and carbon dioxide, and when this melts, it will increase global warming and even change plant life. I think we should stay open minded and if all else fails give this a try. I also think it would be amazing to see these creatures come back after we were the cause of deaths for a lot of them, as a way of trying to make amends.#MyCMSTArgs #DoNowURevive https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp

  • Lauren Davis

    I feel like this is a very interesting topic, and I’m so glad I read this because I had no idea this was a topic among scientists! First of all, I think it is a great idea. Not only the science behind it and creating these creatures again, but also because they can help with our carbon footprint. I’d like to think though that if they can piece together missing links and create mammoths again, what else could scientists make? That’s where I wonder about this experiment and where it could get dangerous. We could just let stuff die now, and then have the ability to resurrect later before fixing the problem first. Fascinating idea otherwise and can’t wait to hear more on it.
    #DoNowURevive #MyCMSTArgs @2ndheartmom

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor