Harrison 1
Tyler Harrison
Melissa Hardy
Biology 1010
4 - 19 - 2013
Resurrection of the Dead
Dinosaurs are dead, but could it stay that way? Some say it might just be a fool's dream
to think that someday we'll be able to see Tyrannosaurs Rex, or Saber-Toothed Cats, or any other
type of extinct species that has lived on the Earth. Sure it would be cool, but could it be
possible? Science is always trying to make today's dreams into tomorrow's reality, and this just
may be the case with this technology deemed "De-Extinction". Many people are studying into
this, and are striving to make all this real. However, there are the opponents to this new field that
say that we should leave extinct species just the way they are, extinct. Before we go into the
arguments for and against De-Extinction, let's find out a little more out about it.
De-Extinction is basically just cloning a dead thing. Sounds simple enough, but it really
isn't. First of all you need a pretty good genetic sample in order to bring anything back from the
dead. That can be tough sometimes, because DNA, the genetic blueprint of life, doesn't like to
stay around when something is dead (Yong). DNA has a relatively short half-life of only 521
years (Kaplan). Being that you need the whole genetic code to clone something, that greatly
limits what could be resurrected, for instance dinosaurs will not be coming back anytime soon,
not at least by cloning them genetically. But for things more recent, if you have some well
preserved DNA, it is a little simpler, but only a little. You have to take that DNA and implant it
into an egg cell that has been cleaned from it's original nucleus and DNA. Then you implant that
Harrison 2
egg into a similar creature and wait for it to be born. One of the main obstacles right now is that
the embryo of the implanted DNA stops to divide after a short time and doesn't resume. But
scientists are working tirelessly to overcome this roadblock and start producing extinct species
(Yong).
Why bring back dead species? Some say if you can you should. One of the arguments
supporting bringing back the extinct is that it would increase biodiversity on Earth. As people,
we like animals, and the more the merrier. Others claim that some extinct species were crucial in
their ecosystems, such as the Wooly Mammoth, which kept the arctic north full of grass which
kept it producing oxygen. So they argue that reviving lost species will help the environment.
The other big reason some people want to bring back the extinct is that many species were driven
to extinction because of the acts of man. There are many examples of how humans drove many
species to an early demise. We should try to undo the damage some people claim (Brand).
The opponents De-Extinction would say not so fast. One of the first reasons is that the
extinct are extinct for a reason. We don't always know the cause, but we know they weren't
adapt to handle the change that drove them to extinction. Although sometimes humans are
responsible for a part of there extermination, there are other factors that cause the extinct to die
out. I dare say that if humans were the sole cause of extinction, right now humans would be the
only ones on Earth because of our impact on species. If anything, humans only speed things
along. But the same factors that killed off the extinct in yesteryear could still be around today, so
bringing back these species would be useless, as they would become extinct again. Finally, as
Stuart Pimm of National Geographic News wrote about the subject, we should focus on saving
Harrison 3
endangered species that are living right now, instead of bringing dead ones back. We need to
make our ecosystems suitable for the organisms that live there now (Pimm).
In closing: to clone or not to clone? Well, in my opinion, by all means bring them back!
I have always been interested in this subject, and I honestly wouldn't mind seeing something that
once existed. But I definitely do agree with some of the arguments of the opponents. We can't
just go releasing extinct species back into the wild willy-nilly, no matter how recently have been
here. Earth knows how to take care of itself, so we shouldn't go meddling with ecosystems by
introducing a species that it isn't prepared to handle. But I do support doing this in a controlled
manner, where the species are only allowed in labs and zoos for research. I wouldn't even mind
having a pet velociraptor to ride around (although I can't for several reasons). But anything more
than that would be trouble for the natural balance of things on Earth.
Harrison 4
Works Cited
Brand, Stewart. "Opinion: The Case for Reviving Extinct Species." National Geographic.
National Geographic Society, 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.
Kaplan, Matt. "DNA Has a 521-year Half-life." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 10 Oct
2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.
Pimm, Stuart. "Opinion: The Case Against Species Revival." National Geographic. National
Geographic Society, 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.
Yong, Ed. "Resurrecting the Extinct Frog with a Stomach for a Womb." National Geographic.
National Geographic, 15 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.