When Michael Crichton’s novel Jurassic Park was published in 1990, the idea of resurrecting extinct species through genetic engineering was a concept out of science fiction. Yet today, biotechnology companies make headlines with promises familiar to the fictional InGen Corporation’s ambitious claims of bringing back long-lost species. The parallels are overwhelmingly similar, possibly even more than what Crichton ever imagined.
While bold claims of de-extinction continue to capture imagination, the companies mask significant scientific, ecological, and ethical issues that erode both the feasibility and merit of such projects.
The illusion of progress
When Colossal Biosciences announced they had “brought back the dire wolves,” headlines proclaimed it as an absolute fact, often referencing Game of Thrones. However, science communicator Timothy Dimacali notes the original reportage was “very unequivocal,” stating that resurrection was a completed achievement when in reality, these efforts produce hybrids or approximations of the original species rather than true resurrections.
Although the dire wolf went extinct relatively recently and left behind reasonably good fossil samples, scientists are still unable to determine their exact ecology. As Dimacali clarifies, “there are many unknowns about these creatures… how close it is to what the actual creature was, not just looked like, but also how it behaved.”
When considering older extinctions like the dinosaurs, the unknowns multiply exponentially. When the Jurassic Park movie premiered in 1993, dinosaurs were depicted as lizard-like, dull-colored, lumbering reptiles. However, further research has uncovered that they are a diverse array of animals with vibrant plumage and distinct morphologies. Being wrong about something as fundamental as physical appearance undermines our confidence in how their behaviour, ecology, or basic survival necessities can be replicated.
A fragmented vision of resurrection
The thought of seeing a long-extinct animal today is an exciting concept, yet making it a reality is as possible as the day pigs will be able to fly. Replicating an entire organism would require its complete genome, the genetic instructions needed for the development and function of the organism.
In these de-extinction projects, American vertebrate paleontologist Julie Meachen shares that different companies are obtaining high-quality DNA sequences from fossil or subfossil material to recreate species that have gone extinct. She goes on to explain that what is actually being created are “ecomorphs,” or organisms with similar ecologies, to replicate ecological roles instead of the extinct species in the strictest sense.
Although fossils may contain recoverable genetic material, an entire genome is nearly impossible as DNA starts degrading the moment an organism dies. As a result, most projects utilize genomes of living species as templates, raising the question of whether the product will truly be the same as the extinct species. In reality, these recreations are only hybrids at best.
The failures of playing God
The pursuit of de-extinction raises profound ethical questions that extend far beyond the labs, one of which is whether de-extinction accomplishes genuine restoration. As American philosophy professor Jay Odenbaugh explains, “If you borrow someone’s laptop and return it to another friend rather than the owner, you have not fulfilled your obligation.” He argues that humanity has a moral obligation to restore species we have driven to extinction when possible, but producing something merely similar in appearance does not truly atone for our past mistakes.
On the other hand, American philosophy professor Christopher Preston argues that we do not actually “owe” extinct species resurrection since they no longer exist; it could be seen, though, as expressions of humility and regret, making it more optional rather than obligatory. More concerning is the diversion of resources from the conservation of currently endangered species, with substantial investments in de-extinction projects casting doubt on these efforts’ true motives.
The consequences are also greatly unpredictable. Resurrected species face scarcity and risk of invasiveness, creating what Odenbaugh calls the danger of being “extinct twice.” Preston highlights the ethical issue of creating animals without the opportunity for social connection, claiming that, “The first woolly mammoth would be very lonely (and the Asian elephants that gestated them would be placed in very disorienting roles).” Meachen remarks that, “Introducing these species to a modern ecosystem is going to be difficult at best, disastrous at worst.”
What we still stand to lose
Globally, an estimated 48,600 species are threatened with extinction. However, not every species has been assessed, and only a mere fraction have been identified. The extinction of just one group could alter entire ecosystems because a role would lose its actor, pushing ecosystems into decline and causing a cascade of destruction and extinction, a majority of which are further exacerbated by human activity.
While scientists and conservationists work hard to reverse the decline of biodiversity around the world, many bat an eye at conservation efforts, what more now that claims of de-extinction add to the mix? Meachen shares that scientists are “trying to conserve the species we already have,” but she later shares that it is still the upper circles with the control, and although scientists know better about what is urgent, their voices are minimized, ignored, or even silenced.
Conservation is difficult only because the necessary funding and support from those who could make big changes are close to a pipe dream. Those who plead for these changes rarely get heard. Ultimately, it is only when their voices are no longer ignored that we can see change.
While the potential of genetic technology is compelling, Dimacali worries that “The danger of touting and leaning so heavily into de-extinction is that it gives us a sense of complacency.” If we prioritize ambitious pursuits of resurrecting the long dead, we would let those at the brink of extinction suffer the same fate. We might one day wield the power of bringing them back, yet have no living world to welcome them. If we continue our silence, we only amplify the painful calls of animals whose fates are cut short.
This article was published in The LaSallian‘s October 2025 issue. To read more, visit bit.ly/TLSOct2025.
