Scientists at University of California, Santa Barbara recently have published a scientific paper in the journal Functional Ecology, examining ecological advantages, responsibilities and risks after resurrecting an extinct species and introducing it to modern ecosystems.
[Picture source: Wikipedia]
Researchers at UCSB team offered guidelines for restoring ecological function through de-extinction. They advise how to make it more successful and how to avoid creating 'eco-zombies'. Eco-zombies are resurrected, once extinct species which no longer have any ecological function in modern world.
The guidelines are divided into three criteria:
- The first proposes resurrecting recently extinct species rather than one which disappeared thousands of years ago. These types of species may fit more harmoniously into modern ecosystems, because there has been less time for changes to occur, since their extinction.
- The second criterion proposes selecting species whose ecological function are undoubtedly irreplaceable.
- The third guideline is to resurrect species that can be restored to "functionally meaningful abundance levels". It means having enough individuals within ecosystem to be able to perform their functions good enough to affect the ecosystem.
Instead of opposing the idea of de-extinction, the scientists from UCSB attempt to initiate a conversation within the scientific community about how to make this procedure more ecologically sustainable.
Scientists have already, succesfully managed to clone some of the extinct species.
Please, also check up Vice documentary "The Mission to Resurrect the Woolly Mammoth".
References:
The study published in scientific journal Functional Ecology (reading full article available in pdf version):
"A mammoth undertaking: harnessing insight from functional ecology to shape de-extinction priority setting"
Article in New Atlas:
"We could bring the woolly mammoth back to life, but should we?"
I attended a talk a year or two ago by a professor heading up the project to do this. Was quite interesting.
Is it uploaded anywhere?
No, it was a private talk where I work.
Synthetic Biology and its respective biologists are a very odd ilk; on one hand you have ecologists, marine/environmental biologists crying foul for Ocean temperatures increasing and polar bears being on the brink of a collective heat stroke as the polar caps are melting, and yet... a mega fauna from the Pleistocene (ice age) suited to live in only the most extreme of cold temperatures of that era is #1 on the list of things to do with this technology and resources?
Academia is seriously poisoning and perverting some of our greatest minds with this terrible headlong culture of being the first at 'something' to get social cachet and secure future funding. I've seen it first hand during my undergrad.
Did the situation arise where someone questioned the necessity, and the rather illogical nature of it all? I can just imagine a retort being something along the lines: finding funding to fit a new tailor made subzero cooling system at the LA and San Diego Zoo where they will be on display.
I am the real mammoth (check my nickname :p).
More seriously, this is great to have such studies where one thinks before one acts :)
That's futuristic thinking. I guess this shows up truly sustainable approach to science. Before you desgin/invent/create something, you should always research and try to estimate potential influence on society and environment.
Mr lemmoth :-)