# data[].attributes.body
1. During the last years the ecosystems have changed a lot because of humans

# data[].attributes.headline
When referencing online sources APA style don’t forget to write the year before the month: (2023, January 10)

# data[].attributes.subject
When referencing online sources APA style don’t forget to write the year before the month: (2023, January 10)

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea: It is profitable for us?

Arguments/facts:

Abstract

Molecular Biology and the Three Criteria

Nature vs Nurture

The Past that Leads to the Future

Impacts on the Environment

The Responsibility to Regulate and Why

Precautionary or Revolutionary?

Dialogue: In my opinion even if we achieve our goal we have to think if, it will benefit us because it could be very revolutionary but we have to think we need to have precaution. If not these could run out of our hands so, they would be many problems and discussions all over the world to have these type of technology. So we would need and organization that regulates the use of these tool so, humans could not abuse from it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
De-Extinction and the Environment – The Bioethics Project

# data[].attributes.headline
Talks about extinction but not about DE-extinction

# data[].attributes.subject
Talks about extinction but not about DE-extinction

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.vice.com/en/article/53q7aq/extinction-species-woolly-mammoth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bringing extinct animals back from the dead could hurt existing species, says a new report.

Because of climate change and other pressures, species are estimated to be going extinct at a 1,000 times the natural rate. What if we could bring some of them back from the dead?

Efforts to resurrect the woolly mammoth, for example, have been making headlines for years. Some scientists say they believe it will be done, although there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical, at least in the near term.

Before we start resurrecting extinct species-whether they're long-dead or recently wiped out-we should focus on the ones we've got. According to a new study in Nature Ecology & Evolution, it would cost millions to reintroduce and maintain a "de-extinct" species, a cost that would stretch conservation budgets so much, it would threaten existing populations.

"On the surface of it, de-extinction could lead to biodiversity gain," Carleton University's Joseph Bennett, the lead author of the study, told me. You've got one more plant or animal back on the planet. But there's an issue of resources-you're taking one step forward, and ten steps back, he said. "We've got a huge biodiversity crisis on this Earth, obviously, and there's no shortage of species that need conservation attention and resources."

De-extinction is still a faraway concept, even if it's the source of a lot of excited chatter right now. No one's been able to bring back long-dead animals (including woolly mammoths) yet, though if scientists could snag some DNA before the species goes extinct, it seems possible: the Pyrenean Ibex, a Spanish wild goat that went extinct in 2000, was successfully re-created using a surrogate goat mother. One was born in 2003-it lived for seven minutes.

It would be a huge financial undertaking to expand de-extinct populations in captivity, reintroduce them into the wild, beat away invasive species and maintain populations, Bennett said. Although some have argued that resurrected woolly mammoth herds or elephant-mammoth hybrids could save the Arctic, by controlling permafrost and having a cooling effect, this study suggests that bringing back certain species could put other living animals at risk.

"If you use those same resources on living species," he said, "you could save many more species from extinction."

His team examined the ramifications of de-extinction in New Zealand and New South Wales specifically, because those two areas have gathered extensive data about their most threatened species-about 700 in New Zealand and 400 in New South Wales-in order to come up with plans to save them.

"For every one of their threatened species, they have a prescription," Bennett said. The researchers made a list of 16 species (of a possible 99) that have recently gone extinct in the two areas, based on how easily they could make predictions on what they would eat and where they would live. (All the extinct species in this study vanished within the last 1,000 years or so.)

The researchers matched prescriptions to analyze the cost of helping endangered species, versus the cost of reintroducing ones that have disappeared.

Read More: Ancient Humans To Blame For Killing Australia's 1000-Pound Kangaroos

So how much would this actually cost per year?

It all depends on the species: plants are a lot cheaper (in the tens of thousands), and bigger animals most expensive (in the tens of millions), according to the paper. For the little bush moa, a flightless bird in New Zealand that's estimated to have gone extinct about 500 years ago, Bennett's study places the conservative cost estimate at about US$240,000 a year.

The reality is that the ecosystems of most extinct species have changed since the plants or animals disappeared, so they'd have a hard time fitting into the new reality-the ecosystem would either change and put current species at risk, or it would stay in its altered state and the reintroduced species would be threatened.

Take the woolly mammoth. Most of them died out some 10,000 years ago (a much longer time span than the species included in this study). The woolly mammoth shaped the face of the Arctic tundra when it was alive. If it was to come back tomorrow, it would find the tundra to be vastly different.

"Genetic technologies are moving very quickly," Bennett said, but there are still cultural, ethical, financial and environmental questions to consider. "There are reasons for people to do things such as de-extinction. I would have to ask them, 'What could you do with the millions of dollars you're spending on these things? How many threatened species could you save?'

"It's better to spend the money on the living than the dead."

Get six of our favorite Motherboard stories every day by signing up for our newsletter.

ORIGINAL REPORTING ON EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS IN YOUR INBOX.

By signing up, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy & to receive electronic communications from Vice Media Group, which may include marketing promotions, advertisements and sponsored content.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'De-Extinction' Is a Bad Idea Because We Can't Even Take Care of What We've Got

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bringing extinct animals back from the dead could hurt existing species, says a new report. Because of climate change and other pressures, species are estimated to be going extinct at a 1,000 times the natural rate. What if we could bring some of them back from the dead?

# data[].attributes.body
https://theplosblog.plos.org/2019/01/to-de-extinct-or-not-to-de-extinct/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To de-extinct or not to de-extinct? - The Official PLOS Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Thursday (31 January) evening, Intelligence Squared U.S. organizes a debate on de-extinction, where proponents and opponents of the notion will present their arguments on this controversial topic. One of the significant ways humans affect the environment is by causing or accelerating the extinction of other species.

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea: review initiative of de-extinction, which means bringing extinguished species back to life, as it might alter current world. Analyze pros, cons and consequences.

Arguments/Facts:

negative experience in the past and unexpected consequences /behaviours.

Examples: sparrows introduction, European strains taken to America. Negative consequences for native species.

De-extinguished species would differ from original ones,  unpredictable consequences.

Not easy to undo or to remove consequences and the experiment itself.

DIALOGUE:
I think de-extinction generates excitement: man has always wanted to be like God. But, how will we control the introduction of de-extincted species and its consequences? Wouldn´t it be wiser to accept evolution and use money to  protect current endangered species instead of bringing dead ones back to life?
I wonder if we, humans, should aspire to create life and interfere with nature. Or, if we should respect nature and not cross certain limits.

SUMMARY:
De-extinction means bringing extinct species back to life. The article explains the consequences that this practice might have. There are many possible threats regarding de- extinction: 1. we would be introducting an extinct animal to a habitat that has changed a lot compared to when it was alive. We, humans, have changed the world: forests have been de-forested and replaced by urban or industrial facilities, lots of species have disappeared, polluting emmisions have increased and changed... So, it is simply not true that we would take the revived animal to its original habitat.  2. We would not be able to control how the introduction of the revived species would affect existent species (it might invade and take over the territory... it might migrate and alter balance of different zones). 3. The risen species would not be exactly the same it used to be; it would be a new species with some gens from the extinct one, but not identical. And we cannot predict how this new species will behave or affect. 4. Which species should we bring back? Which not? Why?
The article states that it is very exciting for some scientists to bring species back, but it is a dangerous experiment. It also proposes to differ the de-extinction until we further investigate possible consequences and develop methods to control them.

llester. (February 19, 2016). De-Extinction, a risky ecological experiment. Retrieved from: https://www.esa.org/esablog/2016/02/19/de-extinction-a-risky-ecological-experiment/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetic engineering may allow us to rebirth close facsimiles of extinct species. But would bringing back a few individuals of a famously gregarious bird like the passenger pigeon truly revive the species, when the great oak forests that sustained them are gone? And if it succeeds, what if the birds don't fit in anymore in our changed world? Experience with biological invasions leads guest writer Dave Strayer, a distinguished senior scientist at the Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies, to advocate for caution.

De-extinction (bringing extinct species back from the dead) has been riding a wave of enthusiasm, fueled by Steward Brand's TED talk and several prominent books and articles. But for a project that aspires to use materials from the past to build a better future, de-extinction is doing a poor job of using past experience with biological invasions to temper that enthusiasm.

The basic idea of de-extinction is to use bits of genetic material salvaged from an extinct species (museum specimens, frozen mammoths) in cutting-edge biotechnology to create living animals in the lab, and use these lab-created specimens to re-establish populations of the extinct species in the wild. Actually, as Beth Shapiro described in her excellent book How To Clone a Mammoth, the end product isn't literally the extinct species, but an animal with some of the genes of the extinct species (the passenger pigeon) and some of the genes of a living relative (e.g., the band-tailed pigeon), which hopefully looks and acts something like the extinct species. We might call this new species "passenger pigeon v.2.0".

I don't need to explain the appeal of "de-extinction". Besides using our powers to bring back charismatic species, de-extinction could restore vital functions that these lost animals performed, and thus benefit other inhabitants of their ecosystems. De-extinction is also almost irresistibly cool (come on! Bringing mammoths back from the dead?).

Much of the discussion about de-extinction has focused on the technical challenges of resurrecting extinct species, the problem of choosing which species to revive, and the danger that de-extinction could divert attention and resources away from badly needed programs to prevent further extinctions. These serious problems deserve careful consideration, and are well treated in Shapiro's book and elsewhere. But focusing on these problems can distract us from what may be the central risk of de-extinction: that its ecological effects could be large, and hard to predict and manage.

We have learned from biological invasions that putting new species into ecosystems can have large economic and ecological effects, sometimes positive and sometimes negative, but almost always difficult or impossible to predict or control. Familiar examples include rabbits in Australia; or zebra mussels, emerald ash borers, and chestnut blight in the US, among many others. The combination of large effects, low predictability, and irreversibility makes putting new species into ecosystems, including de-extinction, a risky enterprise.

As for any human activity that poses risks to the environment, proponents of de-extinction should be able to provide good answers to three questions: What are its likely effects? What is the plan to prevent or repair unexpected damage? Why should this project be done now, instead of being deferred?

The usual answer to the first question is that the species is being returned to the ecosystem in which it lived for many years, and will simply resume its former ecological roles. This answer fails on two counts. First, because we've been changing our world so rapidly, a de-extinguished species won't be restored to its former ecosystem, but to a different, sometimes radically different, ecosystem. Since the passenger pigeon was last abundant, its home in eastern North America has been transformed from forests to industrial farms, superhighways, and megalopolises; its human population has increased 5-fold; we've poured huge amounts of nutrients and toxins into the landscape; thousands of species from other parts of the world have become established, while others (like American chestnut) have dwindled or disappeared; and we are in the process of changing its climate.

Ecologists know that the setting into which a species is placed strongly affects its roles and impacts, so there is no reason to expect that passenger pigeon v.2.0 (or any other de-extinguished species) would simply re-assume its former roles. Experience with native North American species like white-tailed deer, Canada geese, coyotes, and Colorado potato beetles shows that the roles that these species play (and human valuation of those roles) changed radically as ecological and societal contexts changed.

The second objection to the naïve answer that a de-extinguished species would simply resume its former roles is that v.2.0 isn't the same as the extinct species. In all but a few of the cases that are being discussed, the organism to be released won't literally be the species that was lost, but rather a human creation that in some ways looks and acts like the lost species. This match might be pretty close, or merely superficial (e.g., a cold-hardy, hairy elephant in place of a woolly mammoth). Even small differences between v.2.0 and the original could cause large differences in roles and effects.

Again, experience with biological invasions shows that this isn't just a theoretical possibility. When two similar species of sparrow were released in North America, one spread quickly and became a widespread nuisance (the house sparrow), while its cousin never left the St. Louis area or caused problems (the Eurasian tree sparrow). The example of the common reed ( Phragmites) is even more striking. Native strains of this species were a widespread but minor part of North American wetlands. When nearly indistinguishable Eurasian strains were introduced, they formed impenetrable thickets all across North America, crowding out native plants, damaging wildlife habitat, and disrupting nutrient cycles. Wetlands managers now spend millions of dollars each year to burn, herbicide, mow, dig up, and otherwise kill Eurasian Phragmites in North America. Organisms that look like one another and share genetic material aren't necessarily interchangable.

It is therefore wholly inadequate to assert that a de-extinguished species will merely resume its former roles, and not cause problems. Furthermore, research on biological invasions shows that it is very difficult to accurately predict the abundance and impacts of newly introduced species. Consequently, we can expect some predictions about the effects of de-extinctions to be wrong, so that some de-extinctions anticipated to be benign will cause harm. It is therefore important that a plan for controlling or repairing damage be in place before these new organisms are released. We routinely assess the likely impacts of oil wells, and require that they be built and operated responsibly, but also require spill-response plans, because we know that some spills will occur despite our best efforts. De-extinguishing species will be far less certain than drilling and operating oil wells, so "spill response" plans will be essential.

Again, the usual response given to this concern is naïve and unsatisfactory: "we removed the species before, and if it becomes a problem, we can simply remove it again". Recall how we removed the passenger pigeon the first time: by felling millions of acres of forests and slaughtering countless birds for market. Does anyone really think that society would allow immense tracts of forest to be cut and millions of birds to be killed (for a market that doesn't even exist today) if passenger pigeon v.2.0 turned out to cause problems? Today's (and tomorrow's) world is vastly different from the world from which these species were removed, so the mechanism of their original extinction probably won't be available as a control method.

Instead of the glib answer that "we did it before, so we can do it again," we need a credible plan to remove problematic de-extinguished species or manage their impacts. Who will decide whether control or eradication is necessary? At what point in the de-extinction process will this decision be made? What tools or methods will be effective in controlling the species or its problems? And who will pay for these efforts? We know from experience with invasive species that control or eradication of nuisance species can be costly and difficult (or impossible), so developing such "spill" plans will be challenging. However, they will be as indispensible for de-extinction as for oil drilling.

Finally, we should ask why de-extinction needs to be done as soon as possible, and not deferred. It is natural that we are eager to bring species back from the dead as soon as we can. This eagerness generates nearly irresistible momentum, but we should resist this momentum and deliberately choose the best time (if ever) to pursue de-extinction. This may mean waiting until we gather information needed to assess the benefits and risks of releasing these new organisms into nature and develop a control plan.

The recent debate about whether to allow fracking in New York is instructive. This new technology can provide large benefits (formerly inaccessible natural gas), but rushing into fracking led to large environmental problems. One approach is to defer fracking. There is no hurry in getting the gas out of the ground (it will still be there tomorrow!), and we can expect to develop better technologies and environmental controls if we wait a bit. Not "no fracking ever," but "no fracking today."

A similar argument could be applied to de-extinction. There is no urgency to most of the cases that are being discussed, apart from the personal desires of some people; no greater difficulty in bringing back a species in 2100 rather than 2030. On the other hand, rushing headlong into de-extinction exposes us to unnecessary risks just as rushing headlong into fracking exposed us to unnecessary environmental damages. So we deserve a good answer to the question not only of why we should bring back the passenger pigeon, but why we should bring it back today.

As an invasion biologist, it's hard not to hear echoes of old enthusiasms in the arguments for de-extinction. ("The introduction of a few rabbits could do little harm and might provide a touch of home...[to Australia]" ¹, "but that so fine a plant as this [water-chestnut], with its handsome leafy rosettes, and edible nuts, ... can ever become a nuisance, I can scarcely believe." ²) Over and over, naïve proponents of introductions seduced us with stories about how new species would improve ecosystems and benefit humans in myriad ways, their enthusiasm unchecked by any rigorous assessment of possible impacts or control plans.

Some of these introductions did bring benefits (although rarely the full benefits that were promised), but many caused large, lasting ecological and economic problems. This bitter experience should have taught us to be wary of the alluring stories now being told about de-extinction. If de-extinction is to proceed, we need serious consideration of its ecological effects, not romantic appeals to the imagination. Let's not repeat old mistakes with new species, no matter how technologically advanced their pedigrees.

1. Thomas Austin, 1859. Wikipedia.

2. George E. Davenport, Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, Vol. 6, page 352.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
De-Extinction, a risky ecological experiment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
De-extinction (bringing extinct species back from the dead) has been riding a wave of enthusiasm, fueled by Steward Brand's TED talk and several prominent books and articles. But for a project that aspires to use materials from the past to build a better future, de-extinction is doing a poor job of using past experience with biological invasions to temper that enthusiasm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plant extinction ‘bad news for all species’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Almost 600 plant species have been lost from the wild in the last 250 years, according to a study.

# data[].attributes.headline
We are going to use it, but we have nothing to talk about in the summary and dialogue because it's not about de-extinction

# data[].attributes.subject
We are going to use it, but we have nothing to talk about in the summary and dialogue because it's not about de-extinction

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea: 10 plants they got extinct and why they got extinct.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most plants have gone extinct through events beyond human control. But for the past two centuries, plants have been victims of habitat destruction. Here are 10 historic plants that have gone extinct-whether recently or long, long ago.

Cooksonia-the earliest known vascular plant, meaning it contains tissues that conduct water, sap, and nutrients-dates back to approximately 425 million years ago. Like other early plants to evolve out of green algae, Cooksonia lacked leaves. How it photosynthesized the sun's energy is still the subject of scientific debate.

Cooksonia's stems are what makes it revolutionary. With water-conducting stems, Cooksonia no longer needed to remain submerged in water. It could colonize dry land and pave the way for animals to later emerge from the sea.

Sigillaria

Sigillaria is one of the most common types of plants from which fossil fuels are made. Looking like Joshua trees or something from a Dr. Seuss book, Sigillaria flourished during the Carboniferous (or coal-bearing) Period of 300 to 360 million years ago.

The tree-like plants rose above the floor of peat-forming swamps, reproducing by spores contained in cones at the ends of their branches. Their fossils have been uncovered during coal mining operations all across the world, from western Pennsylvania to Inner Mongolia.

Calamites have been extinct since the Permian era some 250 million years ago, but fellow members of the horsetail genus ( Equisteum) still grow in the world's swamps. Like modern horsetails, Calamites grew in thickets from rhizomes creeping underground, sending up hollow, ribbed, bamboo-like trunks that grew to 100-160 feet (30-50m).

Flourishing during the Carboniferous Period, when Earth's landmasses were all connected as Pangaea, Calamite fossils can be found on all the continents.

Glossopteris

Glossopteris is one of the few success stories of the ill-fated Terra Nova expedition led by Robert Falcon Scott, who froze to death on Antarctica along with his crew. When their bodies were later discovered, the 270 million-year-old fossils they had collected were brought back to London. Glossopteris was identified, proving that Antarctica was once attached to the other continents and covered with plant life, confirming the theory of plate tectonics.

Glossopteris is an early gymnosperm, a seed-producing tree whose descendants include conifers and cycads.

Araucarioxylon arizonicum

Travel through the Petrified Forest National Park, and you might see remnants of 200 to 250 million-year-old Araucarioxylon arizonicum trees that thrived during the Triassic Period. Some are even preserved as petroglyphs, carved by the Indigenous people living in the area as long as 8,000 years ago.

Today, the national park is in the Navajo and Apache counties of northeastern Arizona. Other trees of the Araucaria genus still exist around the world-the most famous of them perhaps being the Norfolk Island pine.

Franklinia alatamaha

Franklinia alatamaha has been extinct in the wild since the early 19th century and only exists in cultivation. A native of the southeastern United States, it was first known to non-native Americans when it was identified in 1765.

Named after Benjamin Franklin, the tree only survived him by 13 years, having last been seen in the wild in 1803. Already rare in the late 18th century, the reasons for its extinction are not known. Today, cultivated specimens only exist because the tree was lucky enough to have flowers that pleased the human eye.

Orbexilum stipulatum

Better known as leather-root or Falls-of-the-Ohio scurfpea, Orbexilum stipulatum was a native of Rock Island, Kentucky, and was last seen in 1881. The plant relied on the grazing of buffalo, who once roamed the Ohio River valley. Overhunting drove the buffalo out of the region, and with it Orbexilum stipulatum. A dam built on the site submerged Rock Island, sinking hopes of the plant's survival.

Atriplex tularensis

Known by the common name Tulare saltbush or Bakersfield saltbush, Atriplex tularensis was last seen in 1991. It was an annual herb that grew in the alkaline salt pans at the southern end of California's Central Valley, until it was driven to extinction by the expansion of agriculture.

As the Central Valley grew to become a world agricultural leader, farmers and communities drained inland lakes and tapped deep underground acquifers faster than mountain runoff could refill it, depriving Atriplex tularensis of water.

Nesiota elliptica (St. Helena Olive)

You might think that one of the world's remotest islands, Saint Helena in the South Atlantic Ocean (where Napoleon was once exiled), would be a safe place for native plants. But the arrival of the Portuguese in 1502 led to the extinction of numerous Saint Helena native plants, due to deforestation and the introduction of goats. The last remaining tree, kept alive in cultivation, died in 2003.

Sophora toromiro

The Toromiro tree ( Sophora toromiro) was once endemic to Easter Island (Rapa Nui), but despite efforts to cultivate it from seeds collected in the 1960s, the tree has since been declared extinct in the wild. The origins and meaning of Easter Island's famous monumental statues remain mysteries, but so too do the reasons for the island's deforestation.

A combination of over-harvesting, climatic changes, and cultural developments seem to be intertwined reasons for the collapse of a once sustainable society. Whatever the reason and whatever the pace of change, the haunting lesson of Easter Island remains the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Extinct Plants With a Fascinating History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most plants have gone extinct through events beyond human control. But for the past two centuries, plants have been victims of habitat destruction. Here are 10 historic plants that have gone extinct-whether recently or long, long ago. Cooksonia-the earliest known vascular plant, meaning it contains tissues that conduct water, sap, and nutrients-dates back to approximately 425 million years ago.

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea: Even if plants are de-extinct they could no adapt another time to they habitat

Arguments/facts:

The feasibility for de-exctinction should not be used as excuse for insufficient work

Even though we could de-extinct plants, this doesn't mean they could return to they habitats, because a lot of time has passed and another type of plants may be living there now.

A lot of webpages say the same "few plant species extinct in the wild have been successfully reintroduced".

Process of reintroducing plants

Process of evolution of plants

Dialogue:
In my opinion if we achieve all these things we need to ask many questions, like: Is it reasonable? Do we really need it? How is it going to change the environment?. These are only some of the main questions, but I could ask a lot more. We really need to reflection about these things, because once you have started, maybe you cannot go back and change it. We may be creating a lot of problems. THINK BEFORE ACTING.

Summary:
We should talk about how we are improving technology and how we have done it in the past few years. It is scary how fast we are evolving. With the technology we have, we would be able to de-extinct plants. But even if we created them, it would be very difficult to return them to their habitats and only a minor percent of these plants could succeed. It also states to reflect regarding this question: are we doing this to  achieve our expectations? If so, we would put a lot of excuses during the way.

No Author, (2 June 2022) Frankenstein's work or everyday conservation? Examining plant de-extinction in practice retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-for-nature-conservation/special-issue/106WXV11ZX9

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Frankenstein's work or everyday conservation? Examining plant de-extinction in practice

Edited by Thomas Abeli, Sarah Dalrymple, Simone Orsenigo, Sandrine Godefroid

Last update 17 July 2020

Conservation Biology is moving towards very complex actions such as de-extinction, made possible thanks to technological advances in many fields of biology. In animals, de-extinction is the creation of a proxy of an extinct species, while in plants the concept of de-extinction extends to the recovery of true lost genetic diversity, which is possible thanks to the long-term viability of plant propagules (seeds, spores, tissues). For plant populations already extirpated from the wild, ex situ collections (i.e. herbaria, seed banks and botanical gardens) play a key role in the recovery of lost genetic diversity. However, although ex situ material is often available very few plant species extinct in the wild have been successfully reintroduced. Key issues include quality of ex situ sources, strong habitat modifications (including changed climate) and socio-economic constraints. This special issue (SI) reports interesting stories of plants extinct in the wild long ago and reintroduced (or not) from ex situ propagation material either at global or local level. Through the analysis of such cases, the SI highlights key practical aspects that can make de-extinction feasible, but not always successful in terms of reintroduction of the focal species in its natural habitat. Beside the sensationalism associated to the recovery of extinct species, the SI emphasises the constraints that make plant de-extinction difficult and probably not a viable conservation strategy in the long-term. Feasibility of de-extinction should not be used as a justification for insufficient in situ conservation efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conservation Biology is moving towards very complex actions such as de-extinction, made possible thanks to technological advances in many fields of biology. In animals, de-extinction is the creation of a proxy of an extinct species, while in plants the concept of de-extinction extends to the recovery of true lost genetic diversity, which is possible thanks to the long-term viability of plant propagules (seeds, spores, tissues).

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea: How Scientists are resurrecting extinct plants?
Arguments/facts:

Now a days they are reserching to resurrect plants, and that's not only a dream.

We could not only resurrect plants, but also animals, like Dodo.

If we accomplishe to ressurect plants and animals we could also ressurect humans, due to DNA

If we accomplishe to resurrec plants and animals we could know how they live that days.

Palms in the eastern Mediterranean started to show increasing levels of genes from another species.

Dialogue:
Now a days, they are looking ways to, return some plants they got de-extincted due to the meteorite. If we pressurect some plants, we could improve in medice due to we would have more resources. So we could cure more disease. An other thing they mentioned is how Jurassic World used DNA from dinosaurs so even now, they are looking for plants these doesn't meant, farther on they are going to used wit animals, so it eve doe they are no original there DNA is exactly the same so, animals could not get extinct, and the extinct animals would be resurrected. Moreover I don't like resurrecting animals because we are playing to be got deciding which animals lives and whites die, and these could get in our heats and would be a very scary weapon to use between nation because they could use all type of animals to attack between each other and the desire of having these would eradicate our society as we now it now. But for example in plants is different because you could used for better ways, I'm not saying it's not dangerous because it is but, we could rescue many lives.

Summary:
Talks about how we could de-extinct plants, and these would helps us. And even suggest we could try it with animals us Jurassic Parc, have done in they movies with dinosaurs, but they would try with another type of animals. They have a lot of facts like "palms in the eastern Mediterranean started to show increasing levels of genes from another species". They are giving an idea of how these could improve our lives.

Maisoon Mubarak & Rachel Harrison (May 5, 2021) How Scientists Are “Resurrecting” Extinct Plants to Study Their Evolution retrieved from: https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/may/resurrecting-extinct-plants.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Scientists Are “Resurrecting” Extinct Plants to Study Their Evolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NYU researchers sequence the genome of extinct date palms germinated from 2,000-year-old seeds

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea: What is de-extinction? How Does De-Extinction Help the Ecosystem? How Is De-Extinction Possible?

Arguments/facts:

The goal of de-extinction is to re-establish dynamic processes that produce healthy ecosystems and restore biodiversity.

What is de-extinction?

How Does De-Extinction Help the Ecosystem?

How Is De-Extinction Possible?

What Is the Science Behind De-Extinction?

- Back-breeding
- Cloning
- Genome Editing and Synthetic Genomics

Dialogue: In my opinion, if we know what de-extinction, how does it help de-extinction. We would have a lot done. We would have motivation to continue doing even if we failed. Due to the benefits it will bring us. Like we could find a plant that takes away more CO2 so all the contamination we have could be eradicated in a simple way and fast. That's only one of many examples of how we could used it in our benefit. We have already achieve de-extinction of some plants. So it's not something we will do in the future it's happening NOW. Because we could creates them by: Back-breeding, Cloning and Genome Editing and Synthetic Genomics.

Summary: In this webpage, it talks about many things but the main ones are: What is de-extinction? How Does De-Extinction Help the Ecosystem? How Is De-Extinction Possible?. So what is de-extinction? De-extinction is the reverses plant and animal extinctions by creating new versions of previously lost species. Like Back-breeding, cloning, and genome editing are ways for de-extinction of some species. The goal is to re-establish dynamic processes that produce healthy ecosystems and restore biodiversity. Restoring ecosystem functions lost through extinction of animals and species. This idea is the catalyst for de-extinction projects, to de-extinction of species. De-extinction is possible because of bioengineering techniques that can change DNA in the way we want. We could four the DNA of dinosaurs in their bones.

No Author, (No Date) How De-Extinction Works: Methods, Examples and Step-by-Step Process retrieved from: https://colossal.com/how-de-extinction-works/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn the practical ways disruptive de-extinction technologies combat climate change and biodiversity loss. Plus, how the de-extinction process works.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
De-extinction projects for species such as the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon have greatly stimulated public and scientific interest, producing a large body of literature and much debate. To date, there has been little consistency in descriptions of de-extinction technologies and purposes. In 2…

# data[].attributes.headline
Bringing extinct species back from the dead could hurt—not help—conservation efforts

# data[].attributes.subject
Bringing extinct species back from the dead could hurt—not help—conservation efforts

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea (write this down).

The main idea of this article is how to prevent de extinction, one of their ideas is to put sperm of an animal on eggs of another animal.

Arguments/facts (list them in note form).

- A Harvard University team was on the verge of resurrecting the wooly mammoth
- Concept of de-extinction
- How much it would cost to sustain a population of de-extincted animals
- The team considered two different scenarios

Annotate thoughts, ideas or questions (write this down).

To sustain a population of de-extincted animals you would much money. It allows scientists to extrapolate the cost of preserving resurrected animals that are similar to living analogs. The cost of caring for a population of resurrected mammoths.  However instead of focusing the money on de-extinction, we would see a much bigger increase in biodiversity—roughly two to eight times more species saved.

From the notes taken, write a small summary.

In this article they talk about how much it would cost to sustain a world with all the extinded animals. The Harvard team considered 2 different scenarios. One where the government assumes responsibility, the result of this scenario would be an overall loss of biodiversity and about two species would go extinct for every one that could be revived. While in the second scenario private companies sponsor the project and the result whould be that we could see a small increase in biodiversity, especially for animals for which the necessary conservation tools and techniques are already being used to conserve existing endangered species.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bringing extinct species back from the dead could hurt-not help-conservation efforts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ten days ago, science news media outlets around the world reported that a Harvard University-led team was on the verge of resurrecting the wooly mammoth. Although many articles oversold the findings, the concept of de-extinction- bringing extinct animals back to life through genetic engineering-is beginning to move from the realm of science fiction to reality.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: What? How might work? What's the problem?

Arguments/Facts:

De-extinction description

Passenger pigeon experiment

Nazi Germany wanted to bring back extinct animals

Lutz Heck performed back breeding

Using preserved DNA to clone

Difficulty te reconstruct the origina genome

Clones have health problems

Selective breeding´

Trying to bring back the aurochs

Genetically engineering

Introducing CRISPR and modifying genes

Pyrenean ibex failure to clone

Is it playing god?

How would de-extinct animals survive

Should we focus on species on danger of extinction

Animals will suffer

Many animals will die, putting in danger species with small populations

De-extinction natural appearance

White-throated rail evolved 2 times into same evolution after becoming extinct

Woolly Mammoth

Funding for Woolly Mammoth revival

Adapt elephant genes

Stabilizing permafrost

Dialogue:
I believe it is totally unethical to experiment with animals like scientists are doing to de-extinct species. As it says in the article, many animals used for pregnancies or for genetic engineering suffer and die, and are treated just as tools. And also the embryos die due to failure in vital organs. And apart from the animal well-being, the ecosystem well-being is also in danger. But, it could have some good benefits by introducing the right animals in the right place.

Summary:
De-extinction is more or less targeting a species that is extinct, and bringing it back to life. It is also known as resurrection biology. First presented in 2013 as a serious scientific experiment. The first major project of an organization named Revive & Restore was to resurrect the passenger pigeon.
Back in Nazi Germany, two brothers called Heinz and Lutz Heck, wanted to bring back ancient animals seen as "purity". They used back-breeding (similar to selective breeding) to bring back the aurochs and the tarpans and accomplished to make the Heck horse and the Heck cattle, similar to the species mentioned before.
Another possibility to De-extinct is cloning, that can't bring back a dinosaur but it can an animal from which we have preserved DNA. For example passenger pigeons. The process to accomplish this is to use an egg with nucleus removed and "fertilized" with the DNA extracted from the extinct species. Then put that egg inside a surrogate and a baby from the extinct species should be born. But it has many problems apart from being really hard to reconstruct the genomes from the extinct species, sometimes even impossible, clones are normally born with serious health problems. The third possibility is genetic engineering. A company named Colossal had a 15 million dollars funding to bring back to life the woolly mammoth. They say that now, with new technology, they can actually do it. And this is thanks to genetic  engineering, which is using a gene editing tool named CRIPSR and going into certain genes and modify them to get the traits needed to look similar to the extinct species.
Most of these experiments force animals to be inserted a "fertilized" egg. But should we really use them as surrogates? It is quite unethical to do so. Take for example an elephant. Elephants are very intelligent, and subduing them to be pregnant, have babies and watch them die once and once again is extremely cruel. And also the baby would suffer a lot, being full of health problems and having such a horrible short life.

Kelley, Debra. (February 7, 2022). DE-EXTINCTION: WHAT IS IT, HOW MIGHT IT WORK, AND WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? Retrieved from: https://www.grunge.com/758859/de-extinction-what-is-it-how-might-it-work-and-whats-the-problem/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Extinction? It happens. It's been happening for as long as there have been species roaming - or growing on - the Earth, ready and waiting to meet, mate, and finally, to die, but here's the thing: Humans have definitely made it much worse than it ever was.

According to the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, years of studying the planet's fossil records have allowed scientists to determine the natural baseline for global extinctions. Over millennia, it turns out that for every one million species on the planet, one will go extinct every year. (Mass extinctions like the ones caused by asteroid impacts and a series of volcanic eruptions that destroyed a massive amount of marine life about 199 million years ago are something completely different.)

That's an almost unthinkable number of plants and animals that have vanished from this world of ours, and unfortunately, it looks like humans are going to be around to see even more happen. It's estimated that current extinction rates are thousands of times higher than they would be if the planet was just left to fend for itself, and that raises an important question.

Should humankind use their oversized brains and opposable thumbs to resurrect the species they've driven to extinction?

So, what is de-extinction?

De-extinction is basically taking a species that's gone extinct, and bringing it back. As if that isn't creepy enough, it's also called "resurrection biology."

According to an article published in the scientific journal Genes, the idea of de-extinction was first presented to the public as a serious scientific endeavor back in 2013. The first major project of an organization called Revive & Restore is going to be to bring back the passenger pigeon, a bird that once filled the skies of North America with their flocks of millions of birds. There were so many that the sound of an approaching flock was once described by a Potawatomi tribal leader (via Audubon) as sounding like "the trampling of horses," or "distant thunder."

That was in 1850, and the last passenger pigeon - Martha - died in a zoo in 1914. The species decline and extinction was caused by hunting, and the idea that we might be able to bring them back is a fascinating one. It's also a surprisingly complicated issue.

The passenger pigeon is kind of a cut-and-dried case: Humans killed them, and they disappeared. But what about other species? What if the passenger pigeon had, say, evolved thicker plumage, migrated to the North Pole, and set up residence there? Is the passenger pigeon still extinct, or is it just... different? What if two closely-related species interbreed to create a single hybrid species? Are the originals extinct? What makes a species, well, a species is at the heart of the issue.

Genetic engineering could work, too

In 2021, a company called Colossal got $15 million in private funding for their project to resurrect the woolly mammoth. CNN spoke to the head of the project, George Church of the Harvard Medical School. "Up until 2021, it has been kind of a backburner project, frankly ... but now we can actually do it. This is going to change everything."

He described how they were going to do it, too - by genetically engineering an elephant. Using a gene editing tool called CRISPR, they were basically going to go into the genome of an elephant, and make an estimated 50 or so changes to the elephant's genes. Those changes would give the elephant all the characteristics of a woolly mammoth - like the shaggy coat and insulating layers of fat - while also allowing them to engineer out some undesirable traits. What are those? Tusks: Church says that their woolly mammoths won't grow tusks, as a way of keeping them safe from poachers.

From there, the edited cells will be grown either in a surrogate elephant or in an artificial womb. All going well, it would take about 22 months for a newborn baby mammoth to happen. But here's the million-dollar question: Is it a mammoth, or a genetically modified elephant?

How would these animals survive alongside people?

De-extinction is, at a glance, pretty cool. But it's also one of those things that the longer and harder you look at it, the less clear it becomes.

Kristiina Vogt is a University of Washington professor of ecosystem management, and in writing for the Center for Humans and Nature, she questioned just how on earth scientists could expect people to live alongside animals like the woolly mammoth, when they had proven again and again that they're incapable of co-existing with the animals currently struggling to eke out a living.

The planet's surface has changed a lot during the planet's existence, but humankind has had what she calls "an unusually large ecological footprint." Along the way, that footprint has managed to push species (like the wolves pictured) to the brink of extinction. When push comes to shove, people have historically made sure they have the upper hand, even if it means slaughtering vulnerable populations - like wolves - wholesale. Without thinking the whole thing through and deciding how to provide for an entire species, she foresees a future where these resurrected species have no place in the world other than in zoos. In a nutshell: If humans keep breaking the nice things they currently have, what's the point of getting them more nice things?

Should the focus be on saving endangered species instead?

Yale School of the Environment professor Paul Ehrlich and Yale Center for Conservation Biology coordinator Anne H. Ehrlich call de-extinction "a fascinating but dumb idea." At the heart of the problem was what they call a "misallocation of effort," and suggest that all the work - and money - going into bringing extinct species back would be better spent trying to save the species we have.

There are a few layers to this, and firstly, concentrating more on preventing extinctions instead of reversing them would have something of a domino effect. Habitats would be restored, pollution would decline, and maybe - just maybe - the planet would start getting back on track.

A piece written for PLOS agrees, suggesting that if de-extinction ever took off, the consequences would be catastrophic. In addition to not being able to predict what impacts extinct species would have on modern ecosystems, they also suggest that being able to snap our scientific fingers and resurrect an entire species could "reduce the moral weight of extinction," and turn the loss of an endangered plant or animal into something inconsequential.

Should we use animals as surrogates?

When CNN talked to Colossal project leaders, they noted that they were looking at implanting genetically engineered embryos into elephant surrogates - and that opens a whole other can of ethical worms. Love Dalen is a professor of evolutionary genetics at Stockholm's Centre for Palaeogenetics, and explains it like this: Woolly mammoths are as genetically different from Asian elephants - the suggested surrogates - as humans are different from chimpanzees. Should one be made to carry the other? Weird, right? And that's not even getting into the fact that National Geographic points out that Asian elephants are endangered, too, with a population that's been on the decline for decades.

Dr. Barry Starr, a geneticist at The Tech Museum of Innovation, paints a dismal picture of the life destined for elephants chosen as surrogates (via KQED). The nature of experimental cloning or genetic engineering means there will be many, many failed pregnancies, and countless baby mammoths who are born stillborn, miscarried, or who die in infancy. Starr writes: "In this scenario, these intelligent, caring animals are forced to endure multiple failed pregnancies and many dead babies."

National Geographic has cited mounting evidence that yes, elephants do mourn the loss of their loved ones. William & Mary professor of anthropology Barbara King says, "I have no doubt that elephants grieve. We know these are smart and emotional creatures." So, what right do we have to turn them into baby factories?

De-extinction has happened naturally

So here's a weird story, and it's the one about the bird that evolved itself right out of extinction without any help from humans - or their opposable thumbs. It's called the white-throated rail, and according to research published by the University of Portsmouth and the Natural History Museum (via EurekAlert!), it lived on the small islands around Madagascar for a long, long time. Over the generations, a complete lack of predators meant that the birds gradually evolved to lose the ability to fly, and that ended up bringing an end to the species. Around 136,000 years ago, their island home flooded, and the white-throated rail went extinct.

Then, around 100,000 years ago, the waters receded and another group of rails settled down on the same islands. They, too, had no predators, and a study of the fossil remains shows that this second ground of birds evolved in the exact same way and lost their ability to fly.

The process of a species re-evolving after going extinct is called iterative evolution, says CBS. It's rare, but it does happen when an "ancestral species" is subjected to the same conditions and evolves the same way as predecessors to recreate a previously extinct species. Nature, it turns out, can do some incredible things when left alone long enough to do it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
De-Extinction: What Is It, How Might It Work, And What's The Problem? - Grunge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Extinction? It happens. It's been happening for as long as there have been species roaming - or growing on - the Earth, ready and waiting to meet, mate, and finally, to die, but here's the thing: Humans have definitely made it much worse than it ever was.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is “De-Extinction”, And How Is It Carried Out?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Much controversy surrounds the use of cloning and other means to bring extinct species back to life.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea (write this down).

There is no main idea because it explains to you everything about de-extinction. For example it talks about other reasons why de-extinction happens, how many species per year are being driven to extinction, how many native species of most land hanitats have fallen, how many vertebrate species have been driven to extinction and many more.

Arguments/facts (list them in note form).

- What is de-extinction
- Other force at play
- How many species per year are being driven to extinction
- Native species of most land hanitats have fallen 20%
- 680 vertebrate species have been driven to extinction since the 16th century

Annotate thoughts, ideas or questions (write this down).

I believe that de-extinction is a very important problem after seeing all this graphics and data you also without knowing what de-extinction is that de-extinction is a serious problem we are facing right now.

From the notes taken, write a small summary

In this article we can see so many data that it even begin to look dangerous. It explains many things, for example what is de-extinction, how many species per year are being driven to extinction, how many native species of most land hanitats have fallen and much more. It gives you a defenition of  extinction, "Extinction, as it pertains to biology, is defined as “the dying out or extermination of a species.” This can be caused by a number of factors such as natural disasters, planetary shifts, movements of the sun and stars, human causation or evolution itself". We need to understand what probems we are facing now with de-extinction and how we can solve them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn the facts of where extinction and de-extinction efforts stand today. See how the mammoth represents the beginnings of de-extinction.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: How? What? Is it correct? Species to be resurrected. Brief methods explanation. Consequences.

Arguments/Facts:

Different methods of de-extinction

Back-breeding

cloning (Dolly the sheep case),

synthesis.

Define which species to bring back.

Plan control actions, habitat, reasons to bring back

Interaction with current habitat/species.

De-extinction generates enthusiasm. Cool.

The passenger pigeon case (introduce DNA from extinct passenger pigeon to similar live pigeon cell to get something like a passenger pigeon).

Dialogue:
I think that de-extinction should be carefully planned, if we decide to do it. We should avoid unplanned experiments, we must be very careful about consequences and conditions of the new species. At most, I imagine it as a very limited experiment, to understand and test technology, but not a tool that is widely used. In general terms, I prefer to care about what we have now and avoid playing God. The past shows us that, whenever man interfered with nature, results were awful. We can see it almost everyday, when we see non-native species of plants and animals that have invaded foreign areas, damaging local species and fostering devastation among native ones.

Summary:
De-extinction is about bringing an extinct species back to life. Methods for de-extinction can be divided into three large groups:
-Back-breeding: which means recreating a primitive species by selecting/reproducing animals that look like the primitive to get something close to the old ones. But, in fact, there is little or no knowledge about what you are going to obtain and, definitely, you cannot get the real animal (neither regarding physical constitution nor behaviour).
-Cloning (like Dolly the sheep): you take adn from one species and introduce it into an egg of another animal and then introduce this into a third animal, to obtain a clone.
-Synthesis: it is about making up a desired adn sequence as if it were a recipy. You get adn from the extinct species and compare it with the adn of a living one, to detect differences. Once differences are isolated, you can inject the new sequence (containing ith the differences) into the germinal line (eggs and spermatozoon) of the living species and cross- breed animals with the alteredsequences, to obtain something similar to the extinct one.
But the case is: what are we going to do with these species we will bring back? Are we aware of the consequences that this might bring? Are we prepared to offer them the right habitat to live? We need to consider that, once the old species disappeared, another species might have taken its place. So, when we return the extinct animal to its habitat, what will happen with the species that are currently living there? How will this affect them? Will there be enough space for the new species without threatening existent ones?

De-extinction should be limited in its scope, limited in its ambition and limited also regarding the species we bring back. Bringing back creatures from the past should help us to value and take care about what we have now, not to lose it.

American Museum of Natural History. (2014). The Science Behind De-extinction. Retrieved from:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkc_WodJxsk

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea (write this down).

The main idea of this article is how to prevent de extinction, one of their ideas is to put sperm of an animal on eggs of another animal.

Arguments/facts (list them in note form).

- What is de-extinction
- Tools of species resurrection
- Cloning for de-extinction
- Ethical considerations

Annotate thoughts, ideas or questions (write this down).

I believe that de-extinction is very powerful because it helps you to have any species you want for any time you want. However it can be very risky to have de-extinction because something may go wrong and that "animal" maybe be a very dangerous animal.

From the notes taken, write a small summary.

In this article they talk about de-extinction and do a short introduction of de-extinction. There are many candidates for de-extinctions but we still don't know which they are going to do first. German zoologists Lutz and Heinz Heck crossbred different types of cattle in an attempt to back breed for an animal that resembled the aurochs, an extinct species of European wild ox ancestral to modern cattle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

de-extinction, also called resurrection biology, the process of resurrecting species that have died out, or gone extinct. Although once considered a fanciful notion, the possibility of bringing extinct species back to life has been raised by advances in selective breeding, genetics, and reproductive cloning technologies. Key among those advances was the development in the 1990s of a technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which was used to produce the first mammalian clone, Dolly the sheep (born 1996, died 2003).

In 2009, using SCNT, scientists very nearly achieved de-extinction for the first time, attempting to bring back the extinct Pyrenean ibex (or bucardo, Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica). A clone was produced from preserved tissues, but it died from a severe lung defect within minutes of being born. The near success of the attempt sparked debate about whether species should be brought back from extinction and, if they are brought back, how it should be done and how the species should be managed.

The candidate species for de-extinction are many. Some high-profile examples include the woolly mammoth ( Mammuthus primigenius), the passenger pigeon ( Ectopistes migratorius), the thylacine ( Thylacinus cynocephalus), and the gastric-brooding frog ( Rheobatrachus silus). De-extinction does not extend to dinosaurs, partly because of the extreme old age of specimens and the severe degradation of DNA over time.

The tools of species resurrection

The possibility of bringing extinct species back to life was first explored in the early 20th century, through an approach known as back breeding (or breeding back). Back breeding, for the production of a breed that displays the traits of a wild ancestor, is based on the principles of selective breeding, which humans have used for centuries to develop animals with desired traits. In the 1920s and '30s, German zoologists Lutz and Heinz Heck crossbred different types of cattle in an attempt to back breed for an animal that resembled the aurochs ( Bos primigenius), an extinct species of European wild ox ancestral to modern cattle. The Heck brothers crossbred modern cattle based on historical descriptions and bone specimens that provided morphological information about the aurochs but had no insight into the animals' genetic relatedness. As a consequence, the resulting Heck cattle bore little resemblance to the aurochs.

In the latter part of the 20th century, tools emerged that enabled scientists to isolate and analyze DNA from the bones, hair, and other tissues of dead animals. Coupled with advances in reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization, researchers were able to identify cattle that are close genetic relatives of the aurochs and combine their sperm and eggs to produce an animal (the so-called tauros) that is morphologically and genetically similar to the aurochs.

Other advances in genetic technologies have raised the possibility of inferring and reconstructing the genetic sequences of extinct species from even poorly preserved or cryopreserved specimens. Reconstructed sequences could be compared against the sequences of extant species, allowing for the identification of not only living species or breeds best suited for back breeding but also genes that would be candidates for editing in living species. Genome editing, a technique of synthetic biology, involves adding or removing specific pieces of DNA in a species's genome. The discovery of CRISPR ( clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats), a naturally occurring enzyme system that edits DNA in certain microorganisms, greatly facilitated the refinement of genome editing for de-extinction.

Cloning for de-extinction has centred primarily on the use of SCNT. SCNT entails the transfer of the nucleus from a somatic (body) cell of the animal to be cloned into the cytoplasm of an enucleated donor egg (an egg cell that came from another animal and that has had its own nucleus removed). The egg cell is stimulated in the laboratory to initiate cell division, leading to the formation of an embryo. The embryo is then transplanted into the uterus of a surrogate mother, which in the case of de-extinction is a species closely related to the one that is being cloned. In the attempt to resurrect the extinct Pyrenean ibex in 2009, researchers transferred nuclei from thawed fibroblasts of cryopreserved skin specimens into enucleated eggs of domestic goats. The reconstructed embryos were transplanted into either Spanish ibex or hybrid (Spanish ibex × domestic goat) females.

It may also be possible to use stem cells to resurrect extinct species. Somatic cells can be reprogrammed through the introduction of specific genes, creating so-called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Such cells can be stimulated to differentiate into different cell types, including sperm and eggs that potentially can give rise to living organisms. Similar to the other techniques of de-extinction, however, the success of an approach based on stem cells depends largely on the quality of DNA that is available in preserved specimens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
De-extinction | Definition, History, Ethics, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
de-extinction, also called resurrection biology, the process of resurrecting species that have died out, or gone extinct. Although once considered a fanciful notion, the possibility of bringing extinct species back to life has been raised by advances in selective breeding, genetics, and reproductive cloning technologies.

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea: What? How? Methods. Pros and cons.

Arguments/facts:

De-Extinction description

Process of cloning

Process of genome editing

Process of back breeding

Process of iterative evolution

Wooly mammoth info and theoretical ways to resurrect

Advantages:

Helping endangered species

Cures for diseases can be done

Use a de-extincted species to attract people and get funds

Helping Climate change (Compaction of permafrost)

Disadvantages:

Can cause an imbalance on the ecosystem

Could lead to extinction of other species

Dialogue:
I think de-extinction can be a very powerful tool but it is a double-edged sword. It can be used to revive mammoths that would compact the permafrost and prevent it from melting easily. It can also be discovered cures for diseases by studying revived animals or stopping danger of extinction by reviving species. But, it would modify the ecosystem and destabilize it, which could result in terrible catastrophes extinguishing other species massively.

Summary:
De-extinction is the process of creating an organism that is or resembles as extinct. And there 4 ways written in this page to do so. The first one is cloning, the most effective on copying the original species. It is done by extracting the nucleus of a cell conserved from the extinct species and introducing it into an egg without nucleus from the most similar species alive. The second one is genome editing which uses the system of CRISPR/Cas, concretely CRISPR/Cas9. When DNA is inserted into an organism and it is incorporated in specific zones of the organism's chromosomes, those regions are known as CRISPR. And then the organism's chromosomes gets transcribed into its RNA and Cas9 (a protein) binds to it. Then, Cas9 detects and  cuts DNA. This is very useful because it allows genome editing. The third one is back breeding, one of the least accurate when trying to get the original animal if not the most. It consists of breeding similar animals to get ancestral traits from one them. By doing this dozens with different traits from different existing animals it can be obtained an animal really close to the extinct one. This method depends on the ancestral trait still being in nowadays species. And the last one is iterative evolution. This last one consists of giving an existing animal (similar to the extinguished one) the same conditions the extinguished animal had when evolved for them to evolve into an exemplar very similar to the original.
Some advantages of de-extinction are that species in danger of extinction or species recently extinguished species can be preserved. Revived species can be studied to get cures for diseases. Revived species can be used as a "flagship" to attract people to donate for conservation of species and ecosystems. And some species can be introduced to help the imbalances of the ecosystem such as mammoths that compact the permafrost and prevent it from melting at higher temperatures than normally.
But there are also disadvantages to de-extinction. The revived species can have negative consequences for the ecosystem. It could be or become an invasive species putting in danger other species. It can make prey species extinguish if there are too many predators compared to before or create a competition for food and get one species extinct. There are hundreds of ways to harm the environment due to revived species. Another negative option that could happen would be that the revived species died due to its habitat having changed so much because of humans. Or humans itself could start poaching them to get a resource like elephants and ivory and end by extinguish them. It is also very expensive and can divert money to this cause instead to the conservation of actual species.
Leaving pros and cons a side, there are many candidates to be de-extinguished, such as the Wooly Mammoth, the Pyrenean ibex, the aurochs, quagga, passenger pigeon and the Thylacine.

No author (January 28, 2023). De-extinction. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
De-extinction (also known as resurrection biology, or species revivalism) is the process of generating an organism that is either an extinct species or resembles an extinct species. There are several ways to carry out the process of de-extinction. Cloning is the most widely proposed method, although genome editing and selective breeding have also been considered. Similar techniques have been applied to certain endangered species, in hopes to boost populations. The only method of the three that would provide an animal with the same genetic identity is cloning. There are both pros and cons to the process of de-extinction ranging from technological advancements to ethical issues.

Cloning is a commonly suggested method for the potential restoration of an extinct species. It can be done by extracting the nucleus from a preserved cell from the extinct species and swapping it into an egg, without a nucleus, of that species' nearest living relative. The egg can then be inserted into a host from the extinct species' nearest living relative. It is important to note that this method can only be used when a preserved cell is available, meaning it would be most feasible for recently extinct species. Cloning has been used in science since the 1950s. One of the most well known clones is Dolly, the sheep. Dolly was born in the mid 1990s and lived a normal life until she experienced health complications that led to her death. Other animal species known to have been cloned include dogs, pigs, and horses.

Genome editing has been rapidly advancing with the help of the CRISPR/Cas systems, particularly CRISPR/Cas9. The CRISPR/Cas9 system was originally discovered as part of the bacterial immune system. Viral DNA that was injected into the bacterium became incorporated into the bacterial chromosome at specific regions. These regions are called clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, otherwise known as CRISPR. Since the viral DNA is within the chromosome, it gets transcribed into RNA. Once this occurs, the Cas9 binds to the RNA. Cas9 can recognize the foreign insert and cleaves it. This discovery was very crucial because now the Cas protein can be viewed as a scissor in the genome editing process.

By using cells from a closely related species to the extinct species, genome editing can play a role in the de-extinction process. Germ cells may be edited directly, so that the egg and sperm produced by the extant parent species will produce offspring of the extinct species, or somatic cells may be edited and transferred via somatic cell nuclear transfer. This results in a hybrid between the two species, since it is not completely one animal. Because it is possible to sequence and assemble the genome of extinct organisms from highly degraded tissues, this technique enables scientists to pursue de-extinction in a wider array of species, including those for which no well-preserved remains exist. However, the more degraded and old the tissue from the extinct species is, the more fragmented the resulting DNA will be, making genome assembly more challenging.

Back breeding is a form of selective breeding. As opposed to breeding animals for a trait to advance the species in selective breeding, back breeding involves breeding animals for an ancestral characteristic that may not be seen throughout the species as frequently. This method can recreate the traits of an extinct species, but the genome will differ from the original species. Back breeding, however, is contingent on the ancestral trait of the species still being in the population in any frequency.

A natural process of de-extinction is iterative evolution. This process occurs when a species becomes extinct, but then reappears after some amount of time. An example of this process occurred with the white-throated rail. This flightless bird became extinct approximately 136,000 years ago due to an unknown event that caused sea levels to rise, which resulted in the demise of the species. The species reappeared about 100,000 years ago when sea levels dropped, allowing the bird to evolve once again as a flightless species on the island of Aldabra, where it is found to the present day. Also see Elvis taxon.

The technologies being developed for de-extinction could lead to large advancements in scientific technology and process. This includes the advancement of genetic technologies that are used to improve the cloning process for de-extinction. The technologies could be used to prevent endangered species from going extinct. The study of reintroduced species could also lead to advancements in science. By studying previously extinct animals, cures to diseases could be discovered. Revived species may support conservation initiatives by acting as " flagship species" to generate public enthusiasm and funds for conserving entire ecosystems.

If de-extinction is prioritized it would lead to the improvement of current conservation strategies. Conservation would be necessary in order to reintroduce a species into the ecosystem. Conservation efforts would be taken initially until the revived population can sustain itself in the wild. De-extinction could also help improve ecosystems that had been destroyed by human development by introducing an extinct species back into an ecosystem to revive it. It is also a question whether reviving species driven to extinction by Humans is an ethical obligation.

The reintroduction of extinct species could have a negative impact on extant species and their ecosystem. Reintroducing an extinct species into its former ecosystem could now be seen as classifying it as being an invasive species. This could lead to the extinction of living species due to competition for food or other competitive exclusion. It could also lead to the extinction of prey species if they have more predators in an environment that had few predators before the reintroduction of an extinct species. If a species has been extinct for a long period of time the environment they are introduced to could be wildly different from the one that they can survive in. The changes in the environment due to human development could mean that the species may not survive if reintroduced into that ecosystem. A species could also become extinct again after de-extinction if the reasons for its extinction are still a threat. The woolly mammoth would be hunted by poachers just like elephants for their ivory and could go extinct again if this were to happen. Or, if a species is reintroduced into an environment with disease it has no immunity to the reintroduced species could be wiped out by a disease that current species can survive.

De-extinction is a very expensive process. Bringing back one species can cost millions of dollars. The money for de-extinction would most likely come from current conservation efforts. These efforts could be weakened if funding is taken from conservation and put into de-extinction. This would mean that critically endangered species would start to go extinct faster because there are no longer resources that are needed to maintain their populations. Also since cloning techniques will never produce a species completely identical to the extinct one the reintroduction of the species may not have the environment benefits that conservationists hope it would. They may not have the same role in the food chain that they did before and therefore cannot restore damaged ecosystems.

The existence of preserved soft tissue remains and DNA from woolly mammoths has led to the idea that the species could be recreated by scientific means. Two methods have been proposed to achieve this. The first would be to use the cloning process, however even the most intact mammoth samples have had little usable DNA because of their conditions of preservation. There is not enough DNA intact to guide the production of an embryo. The second method would involve artificially inseminating an elephant egg cell with preserved sperm of the mammoth. The resulting offspring would be an elephant-mammoth hybrid. After several generations of cross-breeding these hybrids, an almost pure woolly mammoth could be produced. However, sperm cells of modern mammals are typically potent for up to 15 years after deep-freezing, which could hinder this method. In 2008, a Japanese team found usable DNA in the brains of mice that had been frozen for 16 years. They hope to use similar methods to find usable mammoth DNA. In 2011, Japanese scientists announced plans to clone mammoths within six years.

In March 2014, the Russian Association of Medical Anthropologists reported that blood recovered from a frozen mammoth carcass in 2013 would now provide a good opportunity for cloning the woolly mammoth. Another way to create a living woolly mammoth would be to migrate genes from the mammoth genome into the genes of its closest living relative, the Asian elephant, to create hybridized animals with the notable adaptations that it had for living in a much colder environment than modern day elephants. This is currently being done by a team led by Harvard geneticist George Church. The team has made changes in the elephant genome with the genes that gave the woolly mammoth its cold-resistant blood, longer hair, and extra layer of fat. According to geneticist Hendrik Poinar, a revived woolly mammoth or mammoth-elephant hybrid may find suitable habitat in the tundra and taiga forest ecozones.

George Church has hypothesized the positive effects of bringing back the extinct woolly mammoth would have on the environment, such as the potential for reversing some of the damage caused by global warming. He and his fellow researchers predict that mammoths would eat the dead grass allowing the sun to reach the spring grass; their weight would allow them to break through dense, insulating snow in order to let cold air reach the soil; and their characteristic of felling trees would increase the absorption of sunlight. In an editorial condemning de-extinction, Scientific American pointed out that the technologies involved could have secondary applications, specifically to help species on the verge of extinction regain their genetic diversity.

The Pyrenean ibex was a subspecies of Spanish ibex that lived on the Iberian peninsula. While it was abundant up to the Medieval times, over-hunting in the 19th and 20th centuries led to its demise. In 1999, only a single female named Celia was left alive in Ordesa National Park. Scientists captured her, took a tissue sample from her ear, collared her, then released her back into the wild, where she lived until she was found dead in 2000, having been crushed by a fallen tree. In 2003, scientists used the tissue sample to attempt to clone Celia and resurrect the extinct subspecies. Despite having successfully transferred nuclei from her cells into domestic goat egg cells and impregnating 208 female goats, only one came to term. The baby ibex that was born had a lung defect, and lived for only 7 minutes before suffocating from being incapable of breathing oxygen. Nevertheless, her birth was seen as a triumph and has been considered to have been the first de-extinction. In late 2013, scientists announced that they would again attempt to recreate the Pyrenean ibex. A problem to be faced, in addition to the many challenges of reproduction of a mammal by cloning, is that only females can be produced by cloning the female individual Celia, and no males exist for those females to reproduce with. This could potentially be addressed by breeding female clones with the closely related Southeastern Spanish ibex, and gradually creating a hybrid animal that will eventually bear more resemblance to the Pyrenean ibex than the Southeastern Spanish ibex.

The aurochs was widespread across Eurasia, North Africa, and the Indian subcontinent during the Pleistocene, but only the European aurochs (Bos primigenius primigenius) survived into historic times. This species is heavily featured in European cave paintings, such as Lascaux and Chauvet cave in France, and was still widespread during the Roman era. Following the fall of the Roman empire, overhunting of the aurochs by nobility caused its population to dwindle to a single population in the Jaktorów forest in Poland, where the last wild one died in 1627. However, because the aurochs is ancestral to most modern cattle breeds, it is possible for it to be brought back through selective or back breeding. The first attempt at this was by Heinz and Lutz Heck using modern cattle breeds, which resulted in the creation of Heck cattle. This breed has been introduced to nature preserves across Europe; however, it differs strongly from the aurochs in both physical characteristics and behavior, and modern attempts have tried to create an animal that is nearly identical to the aurochs in morphology, behavior, and even genetics. The TaurOs Project aims to recreate the aurochs through selectively breeding primitive cattle breeds over a course of twenty years to create a self-sufficient bovine grazer in herds of at least 150 animals in rewilded nature areas across Europe. This organization is partnered with the organization Rewilding Europe to help restore balance to European nature. A competing project to recreate the aurochs is the Uruz Project by the True Nature Foundation, which aims to recreate the aurochs through a more efficient breeding strategy and through genome editing, in order to decrease the number of generations of breeding needed and the ability to quickly eliminate undesired traits from the new aurochs population. It is hoped that the new aurochs will reinvigorate European nature by restoring its ecological role as a keystone species, and bring back biodiversity that disappeared following the decline of European megafauna, as well as helping to bring new economic opportunities related to European wildlife viewing.

The quagga ( Equus quagga quagga) is a subspecies of the plains zebra that was distinct in that it was striped on its face and upper torso, but its rear abdomen was a solid brown. It was native to South Africa, but was wiped out in the wild due to overhunting for sport, and the last individual died in 1883 in the Amsterdam Zoo. However, since it is technically the same species as the surviving plains zebra, it has been argued that the quagga could be revived through artificial selection. The Quagga Project aims to recreate the animal through the selective or back breeding of plains zebras. It also aims to release these animals onto the western Cape once an animal that fully resembles the quagga is achieved, which could have the benefit of eradicating non-native trees.

The thylacine was native to the Australian mainland, Tasmania and New Guinea. It is believed to have become extinct in the 20th century. The thylacine had become extremely rare or extinct on the Australian mainland before British settlement of the continent. The last known thylacine, named Benjamin, died at the Hobart Zoo, on September 7, 1936. He is believed to have died as the result of neglect-locked out of his sheltered sleeping quarters, he was exposed to a rare occurrence of extreme Tasmanian weather: extreme heat during the day and freezing temperatures at night. Official protection of the species by the Tasmanian government was introduced on July 10, 1936, roughly 59 days before the last known specimen died in captivity.

In December 2017 it was announced in Nature Ecology and Evolution that the full nuclear genome of the thylacine had been successfully sequenced, marking the completion of the critical first step toward de-extinction that began in 2008, with the extraction of the DNA samples from the preserved pouch specimen. The Thylacine genome was reconstructed by using the genome editing method. The Tasmanian devil was used as a reference for the assembly of the full nuclear genome. Andrew J. Pask from the University of Melbourne has stated that the next step toward de-extinction will be to create a functional genome, which will require extensive research and development, estimating that a full attempt to resurrect the species may be possible as early as 2027.

The passenger pigeon numbered in the billions before being wiped out due to commercial hunting and habitat loss. The non-profit Revive & Restore obtained DNA from the passenger pigeon from museum specimens and skins; however, this DNA is degraded because it is so old. For this reason, simple cloning would not be an effective way to perform de-extinction for this species because parts of the genome would be missing. Instead, Revive & Restore focuses on identifying mutations in the DNA that would cause a phenotypic difference between the extinct passenger pigeon and its closest living relative the band-tailed pigeon. In doing this, they can determine how to modify the DNA of the band-tailed pigeon to change the traits to mimic the traits of the passenger pigeon. In this sense, the de-extinct passenger pigeon would not be genetically identical to the extinct passenger pigeon, but it would have the same traits. The de-extinct passenger pigeon hybrid is expected to be ready for captive breeding by 2024 and released into the wild by 2030.

A "De-extinction Task Force" was established in April 2014 under the auspices of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) and charged with drafting a set of Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit to position the IUCN SSC on the rapidly emerging technological feasibility of creating a proxy of an extinct species.

Moa - this group of large (up to 4 m [12 ft] tall and 110 kg [250 lb]), flightless birds became extinct in approximately 1400 AD following the arrival and proliferation of the Maori people on New Zealand; however, intact DNA from both preserved specimens and eggshells makes the moa a candidate for resurrection.[failed verification ] New Zealand politician Trevor Mallard has suggested bringing back a medium-sized species.

Heath hen - this subspecies of the prairie chicken became extinct on Martha's Vineyard in 1932 despite conservation efforts; however, the availability of usable DNA in museum specimens and protected areas in its former range makes this bird a possible candidate for de-extinction and reintroduction to its former habitat.

Dodo - this large, flightless ground bird endemic to Mauritius was last sighted in the 1640s and was most likely extinct by 1700, due to exploitation by humans and due to introduced species such as rats and pigs, which ate their eggs, and has since become a symbol of extinction in popular culture. Due to a wealth of bones and some tissues, it is possible that this species may live again as it has a close relative in the surviving Nicobar pigeon. The entire dodo bird genome has been sequenced, but further steps towards de-extinction have not yet been made.

Carolina parakeet

Cuban macaw

Labrador duck

Haast's eagle

1. ^ Yin, Steph (20 March 2017). "We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?". New York Times.

2. Shapiro, Beth (2016-08-09). "Pathways to de-extinction: how close can we get to resurrection of an extinct species?". Functional Ecology. 31 (5): 996-1002. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12705. ISSN 0269-8463. S2CID 15257110.

3. Palermo, Giulia; Ricci, Clarisse G.; McCammon, J. Andrew (April 2019). "The invisible dance of CRISPR-Cas9. Simulations unveil the molecular side of the gene-editing revolution". Physics Today. 72 (4): 30-36. doi:10.1063/PT.3.4182. ISSN 0031-9228. PMC . PMID 31511751.

4. Shapiro, Beth (2017). "Pathways to de‐extinction: how close can we get to resurrection of an extinct species?". Functional Ecology. 31 (5): 996-1002. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12705. S2CID 15257110.

5. ^ Bennett, Joseph (25 March 2015). "Biodiversity gains from efficient use of private sponsorship for flagship species conservation". Proceedings of the Royal Society. 282 (1805): 20142693. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2693. PMC . PMID 25808885.

6. ^ Whittle, Patrick; et al. (12 Dec 2014). "Re-creation tourism: de-extinction and its implications for nature-based recreation". Current Issues in Tourism. 18 (10): 908-912. doi:10.1080/13683500.2015.1031727. S2CID 154878733.

7. ^ Kasperbauer, T. J. (2017-01-02). "Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction". Ethics, Policy & Environment. 20 (1): 1-14. doi:10.1080/21550085.2017.1291831. ISSN 2155-0085. S2CID 90369318.

8. ^ Kasperbauer, T. J. (2017-01-02). "Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction". Ethics, Policy & Environment. 20 (1): 1-14. doi:10.1080/21550085.2017.1291831. ISSN 2155-0085. S2CID 90369318.

9. ^ Richmond, Douglas J.; Sinding, Mikkel-Holger S.; Gilbert, M. Thomas P. (2016). "The potential and pitfalls of de-extinction". Zoologica Scripta. 45 (S1): 22-36. doi:10.1111/zsc.12212. ISSN 1463-6409.

10. Church, George. "George Church: De-Extinction Is a Good Idea." Scientific American. Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc., 1 Sept. 2013. Web. 13 Oct. 2016.

11. ^ Rokosz, Mieczyslaw (1995). "Cambridge Journals Online - Animal Genetic Resources / Resources génétiques animales / Recursos genéticos animales - Abstract - HISTORY OF THE AUROCHS (BOS TAURUS PRIMIGENIUS) IN POLAND". Animal Genetic Resources Information. 16: 5-12. doi:10.1017/S1014233900004582.

12. ^ Harley, Eric H.; Knight, Michael H.; Lardner, Craig; Wooding, Bernard; Gregor, Michael (2009). "The Quagga Project: Progress over 20 Years of Selective Breeding". South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 39 (2): 155-163. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.653.4113. doi:10.3957/056.039.0206. S2CID 31506168.

13. ^ Feigin, Charles Y.; Newton, Axel H.; Doronina, Liliya; Schmitz, Jürgen; Hipsley, Christy A.; Mitchell, Kieren J.; Gower, Graham; Llamas, Bastien; Soubrier, Julien (2018). "Genome of the Tasmanian tiger provides insights into the evolution and demography of an extinct marsupial carnivore". Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2 (1): 182-192. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0417-y. ISSN 2397-334X. PMID 29230027.

14. ^ IUCN SSC (2016). IUCN SSC Guiding principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission

15. ^ Höss, M.; Dilling, A.; Currant, A.; Pääbo, S. (1996). "Molecular phylogeny of the extinct ground sloth Mylodon darwinii". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 93 (1): 181-185. doi:10.1073/pnas.93.1.181. PMC . PMID 8552600.

16. ^ Poulakakis, N.; Glaberman, S.; Russello, M.; Beheregaray, L. B.; Ciofi, C.; Powell, J. R.; Caccone, A. (2008-10-07). "Historical DNA analysis reveals living descendants of an extinct species of Galápagos tortoise". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (40): 15464-15469. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805340105. PMC . PMID 18809928.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
De-extinction (also known as resurrection biology, or species revivalism) is the process of generating an organism that is either an extinct species or resembles an extinct species. There are several ways to carry out the process of de-extinction. Cloning is the most widely proposed method, although genome editing and selective breeding have also been considered.