Considering the many implications of bringing an extinct species such as the Woolly Mammoth back to life is a fascinating and complicated endeavor. Sherkow and Greely in “What If Extinction Is Not Forever” provide a useful discussion of the pros and cons of de-extinction. The benefits, to them, include “scientific knowledge, technological advancement, concrete environmental benefits, justice, and wonder” (33). They see the risks as including “animal welfare, health, environment, political, and moral” (32).

I personally find myself intuitively against the idea of bringing back extinct species from the dead, and had previously considered many of the risks involved, including that of animal welfare/morality and the potential effect such an action could have on the broader environment. But what I hadn’t considered as much, and what Sherkow and Greely bring up, are the legal and political risks associated with such action. I personally am very interested in the applications of the Endangered Species Act in US environmental law, so thinking about whether species brought back to life would fall under its protections was thought provoking for me. Would these species even be considered “wild” in any sense? How would policy shift based on their population sizes? Could lawsuits be brought on their behalf if a citizen group or nonprofit took issue with some way in which they were being handled? Another reading mentions the potential damage this type of scenario could do to the ESA, by making the permanence of extinction, which forms the bedrock of much of the moral imperative of protecting existing species, impermanent. Clearly de-extinction puts much of what we take for granted in our environmental laws at risk.

An interesting question that was raised in class was how would such de-extinction be regulated. Learning that there is no true oversight board for this sort of thing was shocking to me, and emphasizes the governance gaps in these emerging fields. I personally would like to see some sort of international treaty regarding the genetic manipulation and re-introduction of species into the environment. I have a hard time imagining this doesn’t exist in some form or another in our international agreements. But a clear stance on it would be useful, as it seems de-extinction is a phenomenon here to stay.