The Bioethics of De-Extinction
To view a PDF of this document, click here.
De-extinction, using genetic technology to bring back to life an extinct species, is now a possibility, and the bioethical questions surrounding this practice are therefore more urgent. Colossal Biosciences made headlines with its “resurrection” of the dire wolf recently after an estimated 10,000 years of extinction. The laboratory used AI-enabled genomic mapping, sophisticated gene-editing techniques, and cloning to create a wolf that is an approximate phenotypical match of the extinct dire wolf. Colossal claims to be the world’s first de-extinction company that can generate animals that both resemble and are genetically similar to extinct species. Because scientists have not been able to recover the full DNA of most extinct species, the new creatures that would be brought about are not strictly speaking the same species, but the new “dire wolves” certainly look more like the ancient versions than the gray wolves whose DNA was modified to make these pups.
Many secular ethicists have given a negative evaluation to de-extinction efforts. Liberals contemplating the de-extinction of animals display the kind of skepticism that the Catholic Church has towards the genetic manipulation of humans. Strangely, many of the scholars who have moral problems with the cruelty involved in the large mortality rate linked to genetically modifying and cloning animal embryos do not express the same reticence when human embryos are casually killed in the practice of in vitro fertilization (IVF) or pulled apart for their stem cells.
As a Catholic bioethicist I heartily agree that strict ethical safeguards on genetic research should be enacted. I do place the bar far lower, however, when it comes to animal research subjects rather than humans. Certainly, it would be irresponsible to bring back from extinction and release into nature species that have the potential to become invasive animals causing ecological damage. The “Jurassic Park” dystopia conceived by Michael Crichton as a science fiction novel and later film franchise, however, strikes me as an entertaining but farfetched story rather than a realistic threat to humanity.
Perhaps the most visceral objection to de-extinction comes from some conservationists who fear that their slogan “extinction is forever” will no longer have the same emotional impact if these efforts proceed. They say the millions spent on efforts by Colossal and other similar companies would be far better used to preserve eco-systems and prevent further extinctions of endangered species. The obvious response to such concerns is to point out the self-serving reasoning that money not spent on de-extinction would then be poured into conservation efforts. It is likely that many investors in Colossal do so for the “coolness” factor and because they think the company will produce a profit. These people would probably not direct nearly the same amount of funding to environmentalist groups. (Since 2021 Colossal has raised $435 million dollars and has an estimated worth of $10.2 billion today.) In fact, companies like Colossal could make conservation efforts more effective by using similar genetic techniques to help some endangered species have greater genetic variability.
Some ethicists claim that to create an extinct species involves unacceptable animal cruelty. In 2003 there was an effort to bring back the recently extinct bucardo, a wild goat that lived in the Pyrenees. Cells preserved from the last known living bucardo were used to make embryonic clones using eggs and surrogate mothers from related species of wild goats. They had the kind of failure that is common with in vitro fertilization. Of 57 attempted embryonic transfers, only seven goats became pregnant and only one cloned bucardo survived to birth. It died a few minutes later because of malformations in its lungs. Science writers quipped that the bucardo is the only species to become extinct … twice.
Colossal created 360 embryos with genetic modifications to produce an animal that has the main characteristics of a dire wolf. They then transferred 45 embryos to each of eight different dogs over time and only had three healthy wolf pups at the end of the process. Clearly this kind of experimentation involves a very high mortality rate for the embryos. It would certainly be ethically unacceptable to do this to human embryos, but I am less categorical about the ethics of it for animals. Since they did manage to create healthy wolves, the sacrifice may have been worth it.
Interestingly, the signature de-extinction project for Colossal is bringing back the Wooly Mammoth. The main reason they give for doing so is to recreate an arctic grassland ecosystem that could mitigate some of the damage of global warming. The idea is that creatures like mammoths would help reduce melting of the permafrost in the Arctic tundra and prevent the release of huge amounts of greenhouse gases. Just on the face of it, this idea seems very unlikely to succeed. It may not be feasible, but is it ethically problematic?
Some conservationists say that the Asian Elephants who will be used to provide the eggs and surrogate mothers for the new “mammoths” are endangered themselves. There are between 30,000 and 50,000 in the wild and their numbers are declining constantly, mostly due to habitat loss. Colossal would likely respond that they plan to only use elephants that are already in captivity and not negatively affect the wild populations. They also provided research support and funding for a new vaccine that could save the lives of many Asian elephants. Certainly, there would be large numbers of elephant/mammoth embryo deaths, and, with an 18-22 month average length of pregnancy, success will only be possible in a few years in the best case scenario.
The genetic manipulations being done by Colossal and other companies on animals raise interesting bioethical questions. I believe that the kind of skepticism they have aroused among professional ethicists could have a salutary effect on the struggle to prevent unethical gene editing of humans. There may be good prudential reasons to disapprove of pseudo-dire wolves or mammoths, but the much lower intrinsic dignity of animals when compared to humans means that Catholic bioethics would not categorically exclude these kinds of experiments if carried out with certain safeguards. In fact, genetic modification of animals through selective breeding has been a common practice for a long time and is not ethically problematic in principle.
Joseph Meaney received his PhD in bioethics from the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Rome. His doctoral program was founded by the late Elio Cardinal Sgreccia and linked to the medical school and Gemelli teaching hospital. His dissertation topic was Conscience and Health Care: A Bioethical Analysis. Dr. Meaney earned his master’s in Latin American studies, focusing on health care in Guatemala, from the University of Texas at Austin. He graduated from the University of Dallas with a BA in history and a concentration in international studies. The Benedict XVI Catholic University in Trujillo, Peru, awarded Dr. Meaney an honorary visiting professorship. The University of Dallas bestowed on him an honorary doctorate in Humane Letters in 2022.