# data[].attributes.body
The loss of animals endangers their ecosystem and many other animals will die. Everything in their environment will not survive without the dead species.

And the environment of the extinct animals would have changed and reintroducing them back it could be catastrophic

# data[].attributes.body
selective crossbreeding
gene-editing
IN-Vitro gametogenesis
IN-Vitro fertilitzation

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
Possibilities have been raised because of advances in technology
Arguments/facts:
-In 2009 scientists almost achieved bringing the Pyrenean Ibex back but died a few minutes later of being born because of a lung defection.
- the possibility of bringing species back was studied in the early 20th century through back breeding.
-vitro fertilization helped scientists to identify close relatives and combine their sperm and eggs no make an animal.
Dialogue:
-Why did scientists want to bring back the Pyrenean ibex first and not another animal?
Summary:
The possibility of bringing back species has been raised because of advanced technologies in selective breeding, genetics, and reproductive cloning.
In 2009 scientists nearly brought back a Pyrenean Ibex with preserved tissues, but died a few minutes later after being born because of a lung being deformed.
Genetic technologies have advanced and higher the possibility of bringing back poorly preserved species.
CRISPR is an enzyme system that edits DNA in certain microorganisms.
SCNT transfers the nucleus of a somatic cell o an animal one to be cloned into the cytoplasm of a donor egg. The egg cell is simulated into cell division which leads to the formation of the embryo which is later transferred to the embryo of a female which is similar to the one that is going to be cloned.
APA:
Kara.R,(2019,agust 23).De-extinction.Encyclopedia Britannica .retrieved from:https://www.britannica.com/science/de-extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enter the Access ID and Passcode provided by your school to access Britannica School.

# data[].attributes.headline
25 Animals That Scientists Want to Bring Back From Extinction

# data[].attributes.subject
25 Animals That Scientists Want to Bring Back From Extinction

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea
25 animals scientists want to de-extinct.
Arguments and facts

Dialogue
- our favorite is the Dodo
- we would be terrified if the  was de-extinct

Summary
1-Caspian Tiger: bring them back because of  reintroducing their identical Siberian tigers to their old habitats where scientists expect them to adapt
2-Aurochs: bring them back by selective breeding because of their DNA.
3-Carolina Parakeet: the genes that made them are still in Mexico and the Caribbean
4-Cuban Macaw: they have similarities in appearance with bred birds but they are a little bit bigger.
5-Dodo: in 2007 scientists found a dodo skeleton perfectly preserved and they made lots of DNA samples with it
6-Wolly Mammoth: they can cool the environment, scientists say we are the blame for their extinction.
7-Labrador Duck: they don't taste good so people won't eat them,
8-Wolly Rhinoceros: they have a very well-suited body for the cold.
9-Heath Hen: They are delicious and people ate them for thanksgiving so scientists say they are another candidate.
10-Ivory-billed Woodpecker: they lived in virgin forests and there hasn't been one specie since 1940
11-Imperial woodpeckers: they are listed as possibly extinct, their habitat was destroyed by humans, and scientists want to bring them back to make up for what humans did.
12-Moa: extinct because of people hunting them, their genes can be possibly  still in South America
13-Elephant bird: only found in Madagascar but scientists think people made them extinct too so they want to make up for that.
14-Pyrenean Ibex: Scientists tried to clone one but did a few minutes after being born.
15-Quagga: last one was shot in 1870, quagga project started  in 1987 to bring them back
16-Freshwater Dolphin: thought that they are extinct but found one in the river a few years ago they want to bring him back to make them not extinct.
17-Tasmanian Tiger: Tasmanian devils maybe carry some of their DNA.
18-Irish Elk: Red deer or fallow deer maybe have similar genes, they were one of the largest deers to be on earth.
19-Caribean Monk seal: closely related to Hawaiian monk seals, hunted for extinction because for use of oil.
20-Huia: there is little known about them, so they want to bring them back to know more about them.
21-Moho: died because of habitat loss, some birds like waxwings may carry some similar genetics
22-Steller's Sea cow: they were hunted to extinction because they were one of the two species of sea cows, scientists may bring them back by Dugongs because they carry a little bit of their DNA.
23-Passenger Pigeons: haunted for food for slaves, the last one died in 1914.
24-Gastric-brooding Frog: extinct in 1983, they swallowed eggs and hatched them .scientist tried to bring them back in 2013.
25-Great Auk: died because of a combination of climate change during a little ice age that brought the predatory polar bear to the earth.
APA
Lindsay.D(2017, Jan,23).25 Animals that scientists want to bring back from extinction.Science Alert.retrieved from:
https://www.sciencealert.com/25-animals-that-scientists-are-planning-to-bring-back-from-extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the millennia, animals have gone extinct on Earth for many different reasons. Sometimes it's because of a dramatic shift in the climate. Other times it was because of human intervention.

Advances in science, specifically biotechnology, could enable scientists to bring some of these animals 'back' from extinction, and there are a few already on the list.

Generally, it helps if there is a species still alive today that is genetically similar to the extinct animal, like elephants for woolly mammoths or cows for aurochs.

There are also certain criteria to consider, as bringing an animal back from the grave has a lot of biological and ecological implications.

Scientists must be able to show that the species is desirable, such as having an important ecological function or being beloved by humans. And they also must consider practical matters, such as whether we have access to tissue that could give us good quality DNA samples.

Most importantly, though, the animals must also be able to be reintroduced into the wild in the first place, so sufficient habitats, food, and limited contact with humans are pretty important.

Unfortunately, dinosaurs score badly on all of these points, so there probably isn't ever going to be a real Jurassic Park. However, plenty of animals are still on the table.

Here are some of them from the list of candidate species for de-extinction from the Long Now Foundation, which was founded by biologist and writer Stewart Brand, plus some others added from our own research.
1. Caspian Tigers
During their prime, Caspian tigers could be found in Turkey and through much of Central Asia, including Iran and Iraq, and in Northwestern China as well, but they went extinct in the 1960s.

Some scientists want to bring them back by reintroducing the nearly-identical Siberian tiger to its old habitats, where they expect it to adapt.
2. Aurochs
The aurochs is an ancestor of domestic cattle that lived throughout Europe, Asia, and North Africa.

Scientists want to bring them back through selective breeding of cattle species that carry some aurochs DNA. To this end, European teams have been selectively breeding cattle since 2009.
3. The Carolina Parakeet
The Carolina Parakeet was a small, green parrot with a bright yellow head and orange face that was native to the eastern United States.

The last wild one died in 1904 in Florida, but the genes that made them still linger in close relatives in Mexico and the Caribbean.
4. The Cuban Macaw
The vibrant Cuban macaw lived in Cuba and went extinct in 1885 due to hunting, trading and being captured as pets.

Aviculturalists are rumoured to have bred birds that are similar in appearance, but slightly bigger, because they had similar genes.
5. The Dodo
The dodo is perhaps the most famous extinct animal. It evolved without any natural predators, but the humans that arrived on their home island, Mauritius, took advantage of this and killed them all for food.

In 2007, scientists found the best-preserved dodo skeleton ever, which may hold valuable DNA samples.
6. Woolly Mammoth
Woolly Mammoth carcases have been frozen and preserved, which has allowed scientists to access well-preserved DNA.

The last isolated population of woolly mammoths lived on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean until 4,000 years ago, but scientists contest whether we were to blame for their extinction.
7. The Labrador Duck
The Labrador Duck was always rare but disappeared between 1850 and 1870.

Supposedly it didn't taste good, so it wasn't hunted extensively for food, but scientists believe we are responsible for their extinction nonetheless. This is why they want to bring them back.
8. Woolly Rhinoceros
The woolly rhinoceros was common throughout Europe and Asia.

It had stocky legs and a thick woolly coat that made it well suited for the cold tundra environment during the ice age. Human hunting is often blamed for their extinction, so scientists want to re-introduce them to make up for it.
9. The Heath Hen
The Heath Hen lived in coastal North America up until 1932.

They made for delicious dinners, and were likely the foundation of the Pilgrims' first Thanksgiving. We practically ate them all, which makes them another candidate for de-extinction.
10. The Ivory-billed Woodpecker
The Ivory-billed Woodpecker lived in 'virgin forests' of the southeastern United States, but there hasn't been a confirmed sighting of the bird since the 1940s.

The Cornell Lab of Ornithology even offered a $50,000 reward for someone who could lead researchers to a living specimen.
11. The Imperial Woodpecker
The Imperial Woodpecker may actually still be alive, but hasn't been seen in more than 50 years.

It is officially listed as "critically endangered (possibly extinct)" because a lot of its habitat was destroyed by humans. If it is extinct, scientists want to bring it back to make up for that.
12. The Moa
The Moa were a giant flightless bird from New Zealand that reached 12 feet tall and weighed more than 500 pounds.

They died out because of over hunting by the Maori by 1400, and their closest relatives have been found to be the flighted South American tinamous, which could hold some of their genes.
13. The Elephant Bird
This giant, flightless Elephant bird was found only on the island of Madagascar and died out by the 17th century.

It is widely believed that they went extinct as a result of human activity, so we want to make up for that too.
14. The Pyrenean Ibex
The Pyrenean ibex lived in Southern France and the Northern Pyrenees, but died out in January 2000.

Scientists tried to clone one using DNA from one of the last females, but it died shortly after being born.
15. The Quagga
This extinct species of plains Zebra, the Quagga, once lived in South Africa.

The last wild one was shot in 1870 and the last in captivity died in 1883. The Quagga Project, started in 1987, is an attempt to bring them back from extinction.
16. The Freshwater Dolphin
This freshwater dolphin is known as the Baiji and lived in the Yangtze River in China.

It was declared extinct a decade ago, but scientists claimed to spot one in the river late last year. If some still are alive, conservation efforts will attempt to bring their populations up again.
17. The Tasmanian Tiger
The Thylacine, or Tasmanian Tiger, is the only marsupial to make the list. It's also probably not like any other marsupial you can name.

Although it once lived on mainland Australia and New Guinea - it eventually was limited to Tasmania until the 1930s when it died out.

Tasmanian devils may carry some of its DNA.
18. Irish Elk
Irish elks were one of the largest deer ever to walk the Earth.

The most recent remains of the species have been carbon dated to about 7,700 years ago in Siberia. Red deer or fallow deer might have some similar genes.
19. The Caribbean Monk Seal
The Caribbean monk seal was hunted to extinction for use as oil, and they were out-competed for fish by humans and died out in 1952.

They were closely related to Hawaiian monk seals, which live around the Hawaiian Islands, and Mediterranean monk seals, which are both endangered.
20. The Huia
The Huia was a large species of New Zealand wattlebird.

It went extinct in the 20th century because of hunting to make specimens for museums and private collectors.

The female had a long, curved beak, while the male's was shorter. Very little is known about their actual biology, so bringing them back would be fascinating.
21.The Moho
The Moho are a genus of extinct birds from Hawaii. Most of them died out because of habitat loss and hunting.

The Hawaiian Moho seen here died out in 1934, but some birds like waxwings and the palmchat might carry remnants of their DNA.
22. The Steller's Sea Cow
The Steller's sea cow is related to the manatee and dugong, the two remaining species of sea cow.

They were once abundant in the North Pacific, but within 27 years were hunted to extinction. Dugongs might still be carrying some of its DNA, which could be how scientists bring them back.
23. Passenger Pigeons
With so many pigeons around, it's hard to imagine a species going extinct. But that's what happened to the passenger pigeons, which died out after living in enormous flocks throughout the 20th century.

It was hunted as food for slaves on a massive scale until the last one died in 1914. Passenger pigeons have several living relatives, including the 17 pigeons in the group Patagioenas.
24. The Gastric-brooding Frog
This is the gastric-brooding frog, which swallowed its eggs and hatched them out of its mouth.

It became extinct in 1983, but in 2013, scientists were able to implant a 'dead' cell nucleus into a fresh egg from another frog species.
25. The Great Auk
The Great Auk went extinct in the mid-19th century. They lived in the North Atlantic from Northern Spain through Canada.

They died off because of a combination of climate changes during the Little Ice Age that brought predatory polar bears into their territories, and human hunting. So again, partially our fault.
This article was originally published by Business Insider.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
25 Animals That Scientists Want to Bring Back From Extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the millennia, animals have gone extinct on Earth for many different reasons. Sometimes it's because of a dramatic shift in the climate. Other times it was because of human intervention. Advances in science, specifically biotechnology, could enable scientists to bring some of these animals 'back' from extinction, and there are a few already on the list.

# data[].attributes.headline
De-Extinction: The Resurrection of Extinct Animals

# data[].attributes.subject
De-Extinction: The Resurrection of Extinct Animals

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
Is de-extinction a bad or a good thing for our planet?
Arguments/facts:
-Talks about arguments in favor and against
-Says that to revive animals they need a lot of DNA and they don't have that much DNA
-People in favor,  say it could help a lot the planet
-It could probably be a therapy to return extinct animals
Dialogue:
-Why de-extinction could be a therapy and could help climate change?
Summary:
Scientists say that we will need a lot of DNA to revive an extinct animal, people in favor say that for them it would be therapy, they would be happier and it could probably change the climate. But against people are scared of bringing back extinct animals like for example dinosaurs, they are dangerous and they could kill many people, and where will they live, in the forest, I don't think so, they could kill many species and as well happens with mammals they are big creatures which could destroy the forest  and do many other bad things
APA
Bob S. (2019). De-Extinction: The Resurrection of Extinct Animals, https://www.treehugger.com/the-resurrection-of-extinct-animals-1091999

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
De-Extinction: The Resurrection of Extinct Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thanks to DNA technology, it may be possible de-extinct animals that vanished off the earth thousands of years ago. But just because this can be done, should we do it?

# data[].attributes.headline
Opinion: The Case for Reviving Extinct Species

# data[].attributes.subject
Opinion: The Case for Reviving Extinct Species

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea
We can't revive creatures that have been extinct a long time ago. And with de-extinction, we are able to genetically modify creatures to eliminate their flaws, so they will not get extinct again and they can beneficiate their environments.

Arguments and Facts
- Only species with really old DNA are the only ones impossible to de-extinct

-Malfunctions can be cured in the process of de-extinction and like this animals can't get extinct twice

-Humans killed off a lot of species over the last 10,000 years.

Dialogue
- Why we can't revive creatures that have been extinct a long time ago?
-How do they eliminate their flaws?
- How can animals beneficiate their environments?

Summary
There are many reasons to bring back extinct animals. Only species with a really old DNA, such as dinosaurs, are the only ones scientist consider extinct.
Many examinations of extinct species can tell us why did they get extinct. Technology for de-extinction will also be used for endangered species. A species with a genetic malfunction can be cured with an adjustment in its DNA during cloning. That gene can be used to stop diseases caused by wild animals.
Many animals were important for their habitat. For example, the passenger pigeon was important for a forest located in Mississippi.
Humans killed off a lot of species over the last 10,000 years. And many of their habitats became horrible death lands.

APA
Brand, S. (2021, May 3). Opinion: The case for reviving extinct species. Adventure. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/130311-deextinction-reviving-extinct-species-opinion-animals-science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Stewart Brandfor National Geographic News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: The Case for Reviving Extinct Species

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are a lot of reasons for bringing back extinct animals, including conservation and medical benefits, argues Stewart Brand.

# data[].attributes.headline
George Church: De-Extinction Is a Good Idea

# data[].attributes.subject
George Church: De-Extinction Is a Good Idea

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea
Is to adapt an ancient ecosystem to a modern one with environmental changes such as global warming.
Arguments and facts
-4,000 years ago Canada and Russia consisted of an ice-based ecosystem but now they are melting if this continues to melt it will release greenhouse gases which will have serious consequences like burning all forests.
-Mamooths can help with fires in forests because they eat dead grass and that would leave new grass to be formed and not cause fires

Dialogue
-Does any other animal can help with also cooling the environment?

Summary
Scientific American states that reviving species such as woolly mammoths from surviving DNA is a terrible ethical decision. Reanimation is about manipulating the best ancient DNA. If we are able to master reanimation, we could save millions of lives. Aside from bringing back extinct species, reanimation could help living ones by restoring them to their former glory. The Tasmanian devil is so inbred at this point that most species members can exchange tumor cells without rejection. A rare transmissible cancer spread via facial wounds drives the species toward extinction.

APA
George. C(2013,sep,1).De-extinction is a good idea.Scientific American.retrieved from:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/george-church-de-extinction-is-a-good-idea/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In its June issue Scientific American published an essay stating emphatically that reanimating species such as woolly mammoths from surviving DNA is a bad idea. This dismissal is too hasty. The idea has merit and is worth discussing with an open mind-and with multidisciplinary viewpoints.

The goal of reanimation research is not to make perfect living copies of extinct organisms, nor is it meant to be a one-off stunt in a laboratory or zoo. Reanimation is about leveraging the best of ancient and synthetic DNA. The goal is to adapt existing ecosystems to radical modern environmental changes, such as global warming, and possibly reverse those changes.

Ecosystems that depend on "keystone species" have lost the species diversity they once had because some species no longer fit. As environmental change occurs, ancient diversity may be needed again. For instance, 4,000 years ago the tundras of Russia and Canada consisted of a richer grass- and ice-based ecosystem. Today they are melting, and if that process continues, they could release more greenhouse gas than all the world's forests would if they burned to the ground. A few dozen changes to the genome of a modern elephant-to give it subcutaneous fat, woolly hair and sebaceous glands-might suffice to create a variation that is functionally similar to the mammoth. Returning this keystone species to the tundras could stave off some effects of warming.

Mammoths could keep the region colder by: (a) eating dead grass, thus enabling the sun to reach spring grass, whose deep roots prevent erosion; (b) increasing reflected light by felling trees, which absorb sunlight; and (c) punching through insulating snow so that freezing air penetrates the soil. Poachers seem far less likely to target Arctic mammoths than African elephants.

"De-extinction" is not a novel idea. Medical researchers have resurrected the full genomes of the human endogenous retrovirus HERV-K and the 1918 influenza virus. Insight into these reanimated species could save millions of lives. Several other extinct genes, including for mammoth hemoglobin, have been reconstructed and tested for novel properties. Moving from these few genes to most of the 20,000 or so in a bird or mammalian genome may not be necessary, and even if it is, it may not be hard to do. The costs for a variety of relevant technologies are low-and dropping.

Breeding animals and raising them until there are sufficient numbers to release into the wild is an ambitious undertaking, but the expense should be comparable to breeding livestock or preserving other endangered wildlife. These costs could be reduced if we used genetic means to improve the species we revive-boosting their immunity and fertility and their ability to draw nutrition from available food and to cope with environmental stress.

Aside from bringing back extinct species, reanimation could help living ones by restoring lost genetic diversity. The Tasmanian devil (aka Sarcophilus harrisii) is so inbred at this point that most species members can exchange tumor cells without rejection. A rare transmissible cancer spread via facial wounds is driving the species toward extinction. Reanimating ancestral, diverse Sarcophilus histocompatibility genes, which govern tissue rejection, could save it. Similar arguments could be made for amphibians, cheetahs, corals and other groups. Ancient genes could make them more tolerant of chemicals, heat, infection and drought.

Reanimation is not a panacea for ecosystems at risk. Preventing ongoing extinction of elephants, rhinoceroses and other threatened species is critically important. By all means, we must set priorities for allocating finite conservation resources. But it is a mistake to look at this issue as a zero-sum game. Just as a new vaccine can free up medical resources that would otherwise be spent on sick patients, reanimation may be able to help conservationists by giving them powerful new tools. That this is even a possibility is reason enough to explore it seriously.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
George Church: De-Extinction Is a Good Idea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In its June issue Scientific American published an essay stating emphatically that reanimating species such as woolly mammoths from surviving DNA is a bad idea. This dismissal is too hasty. The idea has merit and is worth discussing with an open mind-and with multidisciplinary viewpoints.

# data[].attributes.headline
De-Extinction: The Science of Bringing Lost Species Back to Life

# data[].attributes.subject
De-Extinction: The Science of Bringing Lost Species Back to Life

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
Should we bring back extinct animals to live?
Arguments/facts:
-We could build hybrid extinct animals
-Climate change is killing animals
-Cloning could be a possibility
-Some people said that they don't like the idea of de-extinction
Dialogue:
- How could we build hybrid animals?
Summary:
Some people are against de-extinction, so scientists are trying to find a new solution. They think of cloning, but they don't have any type of machine and if we want to build it we don't have that type of technology and climate change is as well affecting many animals
APA
Rebecca E. (no year). De-extinction, https://lernerbooks.com/shop/show/14497#tabs-contributors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the twenty-first century, because of climate change and other human activities, many animal species have become extinct, and many others are at risk of extinction. Once they are gone, we cannot bring them back-or can we?

With techniques such as cloning, scientists want to reverse extinction and return lost species to the wild. Some scientists want to create clones of recently extinct animals, while others want to make new hybrid animals.

Many people are opposed to de-extinction. Some critics say that the work diverts attention from efforts to save species that are endangered. Others say that de-extinction amounts to scientists "playing God." Explore the pros and cons of de-extinction and the cutting-edge science that makes it possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
De-Extinction: The Science of Bringing Lost Species Back to Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the twenty-first century, because of climate change and other human activities, many animal species have become extinct, and many others are at risk of extinction. Once they are gone, we cannot bring them back-or can we? With techniques such as cloning, scientists want to reverse extinction and return lost species to the wild.

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Reasons to Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To)

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Reasons to Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To)

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: There are 5 main pros and cons of de-extinction based on the Standford researchers
Facts:
-There are three ways of bringing animals back which are by cloning, back breeding, and genetic engineering
Dialogue: What were some viruses of the past?
Summary:
People would exploit animals because of it being brought back and this would cause many problems like harm.

Our health would be at risk because they would bring dangerous viruses from the past.

The environment has changed and this would make their life change like for example in eating different types of food and that could cause us and their problems.

It would change medical research because of new things they bring back like viruses and could also change the conservation of the currently endangered species.

It may also have unforeseen consequences

APA:
Breanna.D(2013, Apr,4) 5 reasons to bring back animals and 5 reasons not to. Discover. retrieved from:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/5-reasons-to-bring-back-extinct-animals-and-5-reasons-not-to

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Would you like to see a real, live wooly mammoth? Or how about a Tasmanian tiger in the flesh? Scientists have already finagled a few ways to resurrect extinct species from their evolutionary graves. Even muckier than the scientific methods themselves, though, are the social, ethical and legal ramifications of so-called de-extinction.

In Science today, two Stanford researchers tackle this tricky topic to parse out exactly what we have to gain and lose from de-extinction technologies. Using the passenger pigeon as a thought experiment, another paper in the same issue looks at the fears and excitement of leaders in the field of genomics.

There are three main ways of bringing back extinct species, according to the Stanford researchers: backbreeding, genetic engineering, and cloning. With backbreeding, scientists use a living species that is genetically similar to the extinct species, and selectively breed it for the traits of the now-extinct species. Genetic engineering depends on existing DNA samples of the extinct species; scientists could bring them back to life by targeting and replacing specific genomic sequences in a closely-related living species. Finally, if viable cell nuclei from the extinct species are available, it can be cloned using a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer - a tested but as-of-yet unsuccessful method for extinct species.

Based on the current state of the science, the Stanford researchers distill de-extinction down to five pros and five cons:

Benefits of De-Extinction:

Objections to De-Extinction:

If an extinct animal were brought back to life in the lab, the authors point out that it would still lack many of a species' key characteristics, such as epigenetics, environment and social groups. Plus it would bring along with it a number of complicated legalities relating to the Endangered Species Act and patent laws. And that doesn't even get into the messy world of if and how such resurrections should be regulated.

In the end, both papers seem to draw open-ended conclusions. But if the practice is really as inevitable as it seems, the authors say the most interesting part will be seeing how humanity reacts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Reasons to Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Would you like to see a real, live wooly mammoth? Or how about a Tasmanian tiger in the flesh? Scientists have already finagled a few ways to resurrect extinct species from their evolutionary graves. Even muckier than the scientific methods themselves, though, are the social, ethical and legal ramifications of so-called de-extinction.

# data[].attributes.headline
These scientists say de-extinction is a matter of when, not if

# data[].attributes.subject
These scientists say de-extinction is a matter of when, not if

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
We are going too fast thinking de-extinction could happen this year and that is not possible
Arguments/facts:
-The University of Melbourne has donated 5 million dollars to scientists
-Many scientists say that we are going too fast
-We need to find the cell of the animal to revive them
Dialogue:
-How could we find the cell of a dead and extinct animal?
-Why do we need to go so slow and not start to make the change now?
Summary:
This website is talking about scientists trying to find any substance or the cell of the animal so we can revive it.  Says that some people think it's so easy to do this process but we are going too fast and we need to slow down to think ad process all the information, substances, or animals we want to take back to life.
APA
Nick, K. (2022). De-extinction: Is it really possible to bring extinct animals back from the dead?, https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2022-03-19/de-extinction-thylacine-tasmanian-tiger-woolly-mammoth/100913846

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These scientists say de-extinction is a matter of when, not if

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some scientists say we’ll be seeing extinct animals roaming the wilds within 10 years. But is the science really that advanced?

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea
De-extinction is still in progress and we can't fully revive creatures.

Arguments and facts
- There are many processes to revive an extinct creature
- The creature's DNA has to be well conserved

Dialogue
- we believe that we should take care of the animals that aren't extinct yet, rather than continue to revive extinct creatures.

Summary
The exact definition of de-extinction is a set of techniques that allows an extinct species to breed again, but unfortunately, de-extinction is not capable of reviving a creature to its true state, but rather making a hybrid between the extinct animal and his closest relative. There are many processes to de-extinct a creature, like selective breeding or genetically modifying creatures, we can also de-extinct by simple cloning, but unfortunately, it can only happen when the extinct animal has been extinct recently.

APA
Google. (n.d.). Google search. Retrieved February 2, 2023, from https://www.google.com/search?q=des%2Bextincion&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMntn949X8AhXCDewKHetcBN0Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=821&dpr=2&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:a9053159,vid:pom-YWl6BNU.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tip: Search for English results only. You can specify your search language in Preferences

# data[].attributes.headline
Resurrecting extinct species might come at a terrible cost

# data[].attributes.subject
Resurrecting extinct species might come at a terrible cost

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea
Bringing back extinct species could lead to biodiversity loss rather than gain.

Arguments and facts
- De-extinction harms close relatives of creatures

-The loss of animals endangers their ecosystem

Dialogue
- How can an ecosystem die without its different species?
- It will be better to protect endangered species, rather than revive already extinct ones.

Summary
The scientist Professor Hugh Possingham said that the research suggested that conservation budgets to cover the costs of de-extinction could endanger already existing species. He clearly states that the many experiments performed on the already existing species to bring back the extinct ones are extremely dangerous because we lose many living species and de-extinction is still in development and we could lose many animal lives. The loss of animals endangers their ecosystem and many other animals will die. Everything in their environment will not survive without the dead species.

And the scientist Dr Joseph Bennett found out that reintroducing some extinct species to their old habitats might improve biodiversity, but the money spent for reviving 11 extinct species could be used for the conservation of 33 endangered species.

APA
ScienceDaily. (2017, February 27). Resurrecting extinct species might come at a terrible cost. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 2, 2023, from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170227120330.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bringing back extinct species could lead to biodiversity loss rather than gain, according to work featuring University of Queensland researchers.

UQ scientist Professor Hugh Possingham said the research suggested further stretching already-strained conservation budgets to cover the costs of de-extinction could endanger extant species (species still in existence).

"If the risk of failure and the costs associated with establishing viable populations could also be calculated, estimates of potential net losses or missed opportunities would probably be considerably higher," Professor Possingham said.

"De-extinction could be useful for inspiring new science and could be beneficial for conservation if we ensure it doesn't reduce existing conservation resources.

"However, in general it is best if we focus on the many species that need our help now."

"Given the considerable potential for missed opportunity, and risks inherent in assuming a resurrected species would fulfil its role as an ecosystem engineer or flagship species, it is unlikely that de-extinction could be justified on grounds of biodiversity conservation."

The study was led by Dr Joseph Bennett, formerly of the ARC Centre for Environmental Decisions at UQ and now of Carleton University, Canada.

It analysed the number of species governments in New Zealand and New South Wales could afford to conserve.

"We based cost estimates on recently extinct species and similar extant species," Dr Bennett said.

The Lord Howe pigeon, eastern bettong, bush moa and Waitomo frog were among the extinct species included in calculations.

The researchers found reintroducing some recently extinct species to their old habitats might improve biodiversity locally, but government-funded conservation for 11 focal extinct species in New Zealand would sacrifice conservation for nearly three times as many (31) extant species.

External funding for conservation of the five focal extinct NSW species could instead be used to conserve more than eight times as many (42) extant species.

Although the technology for de-extinction is still some way off, the research found that careful thought would be required about what species to reintroduce, and where.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
extinction; new species; nature; endangered animals; endangered plants; mating and breeding; ecology research; biology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Resurrecting extinct species might come at a terrible cost

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bringing back extinct species could lead to biodiversity loss rather than gain, according to work featuring University of Queensland researchers. UQ scientist Professor Hugh Possingham said the research suggested further stretching already-strained conservation budgets to cover the costs of de-extinction could endanger extant species (species still in existence).

# data[].attributes.headline
13 Biggest Pros and Cons of De-Extinction

# data[].attributes.subject
13 Biggest Pros and Cons of De-Extinction

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: De-extinction is a great idea
Dialogue: What type of information would we have if a specie that was extinct would come back?
Summary:
Many animals have gone extinct before we had all these advanced technologies and bringing back some species would help us gain more awareness of how our world works and information that today we don't know.

It would get us more experience because the only tact we have with extinct animals is with videos, photos etc..

It would help us bring genetics back to plant-animal lines and improve animal health.

It would help the environment because some of them suffer because there are not he animals that have to be there so we would restore the environment
APA
(2019, Sep 18),13 Biggest pros and cons of De-extinction.Connectus. retrieved from: https://connectusfund.org/13-biggest-pros-and-cons-
of-de-extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In February 2017, scientists announced plans to create a live wooly mammoth in the next 24 months through a process known as de-extinction. When a plant or animal goes extinct, then every member of that species has died. Some of these animals are quite famous, like the Tasmanian tiger and the Mauritius dodo bird.

De-extinction makes it possible to bring an extinct species back to life through the DNAL cloning process. The team that wants to bring back the wooly mammoth, which includes George Church of Harvard University, will use DNA taken from the bodies of the animals trapped in permafrost or ice for up to 10,000 years. Then they plan to mix that genetic information with that of the ancient animal's closest relative, the Asian elephant.

DNA has a half-life of 521 years, which means it is only 50% viable after that amount of time. Since the last known living wooly mammoth died at least 4,000 years ago, the only way to resurrect the animal is to use a current one. The dodo and the Tasmanian tiger might have different results.

List of the Pros of De-Extinction

1. It would give us access to a bevy of new scientific information.
Many of the animals that have gone extinct on our planet passed away before modern science developed. That means we are left with illustrations and observations from those who were alive at the time. Using the de-extinction process to bring them back would allow us to gain more insights into how our world works. This work could help us to discover how the processes of evolution work, what natural resources were once available, and additional information that is not currently available to us.

2. There could be environmental benefits to consider with de-extinction.
There are several damaged and threatened ecosystems throughout the world that struggle because of plant or animal extinction. If we follow this process, then the advantage to consider includes restoration. By creating the balance in the biome once again that nature needs, we could see several environmental benefits begin to develop. It could help to reduce or eliminate some of the issues that we are encountering in the world today when there are too many predators or too much prey.

3. It provides a unique opportunity to experience the past.
For Generation X'ers, Baby Boomers and even some Millennials, the only experience they have with the past are pictures that are in textbooks. Everyone knows what a wooly mammoth is and when they lived, but that is a different experience than contemplating the idea of creating a new one. There is a definite advantage to consider when getting to hang out with the species that have been gone for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. To see them alive and kicking again would be a tremendous accomplishment for humanity.

4. We can provide a measure of justice for the planet.
There are several species that have encountered extinction because of human activities, including poaching. If we are the ones that have pushed specific animals and plants past the brink of destruction, then proponents suggest that there is an equal responsibility to fix the problem. We might owe it to those that have passed on to bring them back as a way to provide a sense of justice for our behaviors.

5. It gives us the foundation for more technological advances.
The 100-year Starship Program is a process that does more than look at the idea of building a vessel that can travel throughout our solar system. It encourages the development of new technologies and processes that would make such a journey possible. We could experience the same advantage when working toward the restoration of species through de-extinction. The genetic engineering process could develop tremendously when our emphasis is on the restoration of a specific species, much like Church's team with the wooly mammoth.

6. The information generated from de-extinction would help us preserve more species.
The techniques that we use to bring back extinct animals can apply to our threatened and endangered species as well. It would be a way to help us bring back genetics to a plant or animal gene line so that the risk of a bottleneck is severely reduced. Although there are certainly some risks to consider with this practice, we could apply the technology to various improvements in animal health too. Imagine birds that can't catch the flu or animals that could provide anti-cancer genes.

List of the Cons of De-Extinction

1. This process continues the issue of exploitation.
One of the primary reasons why animals have gone extinct in modern times is because humans have exploited them. There are several plants that have gone through the same process. If we begin the work of de-extinction, then are we not still exploiting life for purposes that are solely ours? Critics suggest that the idea of bringing back species could cause even more harm to them and our planet, even if they are some biome balancing benefits that could begin to appear over time.

2. There is the threat of new disease with de-extinction.
When an entire species goes extinct, then the diseases that impacted their health disappear from the planet. Going through the process of de-extinction could cause some of the pathogens, bacteria, or viruses to come back with them. We have no way of knowing if there would be human contagions associated with some of the creatures, especially if they come from the ancient world. Although it is a tragedy that many species have gone extinct over time, it may be safer for human health to avoid this area of science altogether.

3. It may not change biomes or environments for the better.
If we can immediately restore an extinct species to its usual environment, then there is the potential to maintain homeostasis there. When there are several hundred years that have passed before the de-extinction process occurs, then the results could be very different. The returning species would be potentially alien to the environment because of the natural evolutionary process. Some might even act as an invasive species. Habitats change over time. Food sources may not even be available to some returning plants or animals. That means their roles in the new ecosystems would change too.

4. This work could change scientific priorities in other fields.
Our current work in most fields involves looking at how the current environment can help us all to live healthy lives. If we progress toward work that involves de-extinction, then our priorities in conservation or medical research might shift. Critics suggest that there would be no reason to start funding endangered species programs because we could restore them if they become extinct for some reason. There would likely be a whole set of complicated legal issues with this practice as well, with the costs of litigation potentially higher than the work needed to bring back plants or animals that have passed away already.

5. There could be unforeseen consequences to these actions.
The idea of de-extinction to some is simple science, but to others, this practice is one that is comparable to playing God. Is it wrong to bring something back that is no longer present on our planet? The unforeseen consequences that could happen when animals like the wooly mammoth come back could put our planet on the brink of turmoil. It may even impact how each of us approaches life. We are already seeing industries pop up that offer to clone your dog or cat for you. Could humans be next?

6. De-extinction could cause even more species to go extinct.
In a review of the key points of de-extinction for New Zealand, writer Jenna Small notes for Science Glory that there are new risks that would occur for our current species with this process. "To resurrect New Zealand's 11 extinct species, three times as many endangered species would go extinct," she writes. "...[T]he cost to bring back five extinct species from New South Wales could help to preserve up to 42 living species."

The cost of de-extinction is a significant disadvantage that is not always discussed. Estimated conservation costs for the warblers on Chatham Island is somewhere near $400,000. That expense is significantly less than what it would take to go through the de-extinction process.

7. It would force the new animals to live in captivity.
When we look at the de-extinction process, the reality of this work is that each animal born from it will already be in captivity. Even Church's wooly mammoth team admits that the goal of the program, if successful, would be to keep the animals with their Asian elephant parents in zoos until they were old enough to establish herds in the colder climate areas of the planet.

We also know that it is an exceptionally slow process. The 24-month deadline to create a wooly mammoth has come and gone without full success. The next steps that Church's team must take are to reprogram the fibroblasts into induced pluripotent cells and development tissue types that help them to study the impact of mammoth mutations on cell traits.

The idea of bringing back extinct species is exciting. It is a scientific accomplishment that could change the world in many positive ways. There is also a lot of work that we must still do before we can produce the first generation of any species that has already passed away.

We have so far been quite unsuccessful with our efforts in this scientific field, but progress is happening. A 2009 effort to bring back a Pyrenean Ibex resulted in a live birth, although the animal died shortly after due to several birth defects in its lungs.

When we carefully examine the pros and cons of de-extinction, it is clear that there are open-ended conclusions that both sides can draw upon as they make their argument. There may be a day when this work is inevitable. That means the question involves a "can we" vs. a "should we" debate where individual perspectives will vary, and no definitive conclusion may ever become available.

Author Bio
Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Biggest Pros and Cons of De-Extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In February 2017, scientists announced plans to create a live wooly mammoth in the next 24 months through a process known as de-extinction. When a plant or animal goes extinct, then every member of that species has died. Some of these animals are quite famous, like the Tasmanian tiger and the Mauritius dodo bird.

# data[].attributes.headline
Animals on the Verge of De-Extinction 🦣 | OpenMind

# data[].attributes.subject
Animals on the Verge of De-Extinction 🦣 | OpenMind

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea
Many projects have been created to de-extinct animals

Argument/Facts
-  The quagga was a type of zebra that was extinct many years ago.
- It will be one of the first to be de-extinct
- 2 really prodegies of science, Heinz and Lutz are going to try to de-extinct Auroch Phenotype

Dialog
- When will the project to revive the quagga start?
- how does selective cossbreading work?
- Did the sheep survive?
Summary

The quagga, a South African zebra with stripes on only the front half of its body, became extinct in the 12 August 1883, when the last specimen died in the Amsterdam Zoo. Current advances are making de-extinction possible thanks to science. And the quagga is one of the first animals scientists want to successfully de-extinct. In 1921, 2 German zoologists Heinz and Lutz Heck launched a program to restore the Auroch Phenotype, the wild ancestor of Bos Taurus. They used selective crossbreeding to obtain new varieties of domestic animals. Selective crossbreeding is able thanks to cloning, they used the same complex cloning that when they clone the sheep Dolly in 1996, it was a great advancement because she was the first mammal to be cloned.

APA

Ventana al Conocimiento (Knowledge Window) Scientific journalism Estimated reading time Time 5 to read, Ventana al Conocimiento (Knowledge Window) Scientific journalism, Window), V. al C. (K., & journalism, S. (2022, January 28). Animals on the verge of de-extinction 🦣. OpenMind. Retrieved January 26, 2023, from https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/bioscience/animals-on-the-verge-of-de-extinction/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The quagga, a South African zebra with stripes on only the front half of its body, became extinct on 12 August 1883, when the last specimen died in the Amsterdam Zoo. A century later, in 1988, the quagga was brought back to life. According to an old environmentalist slogan, extinction is forever, but current advances are making the de-extinction of species a possibility increasingly within the reach of science.

However, the new quagga is not exactly the same animal as the old one. Thanks to the fact that 23 furs have been preserved in museums around the world, in 1984 the DNA of an extinct animal could be analysed for the first time. Analysis of the mitochondrial genome revealed that this equine was not a separate species, but a subspecies ( Equus quagga quagga ) of the common zebra ( Equus quagga ). A team of researchers from South Africa then had the idea that by selectively crossbreeding zebras it would be possible to restore the phenotype of the original subspecies.

Thus, in 1987, the Quagga Project was born, which the following year produced the first foal of what has been called Rau quaggas, in honour of the founder of the project, Reinhold Rau. Scientists cannot be sure that the result is a true quagga, since the genome of the subspecies is not known in detail. But with animals being born that are increasingly similar in appearance to the original quagga, researchers hope to someday repopulate the former domain of this African herbivore.

Interactive timeline: The Resurrection of Species

The Quagga Project was the first attempt in the era of genetics to employ selective crossbreeding procedures to try to retrieve an extinct animal, but there have been previous attempts. In 1921, the German brothers and zoologists Heinz and Lutz Heck launched a breeding program to restore the auroch phenotype ( Bos primigenius ), the wild ancestor of modern cattle, which went extinct in the Jaktorów Forest in Poland in 1627. The two scientists, with the later support of the Nazi regime, created a new race called Heck, which is supposed to have traits similar to aurochs.

Selective crossbreeding is an application of the classical method of artificial selection explained by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species and used by humans since ancient times to obtain new varieties of domestic animals. But it is the new bioengineering technologies developed in recent decades that scientists like Gwen Iacona, a biodiversity expert at the Center for Biodiversity Outcomes at Arizona State University, believe are now making the resurrection of species a reality: "The technical path is progressing very rapidly and some types of de-extinction are currently happening," Iacona tells .

Cloned animals

The first step on this path is cloning, a technique that in 1996 gave us the sheep Dolly, the first mammal cloned using DNA from an adult cell. In 2003, a team of Spanish and French researchers managed for the first time to obtain a clone from an extinct animal, the bucardo ( Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica ), the Pyrenean subspecies of the Iberian ibex, which went extinct in 2000. Cloning was possible because frozen cells from the last specimen had been preserved, but the kid was born with a defect in the lungs and died within a few minutes of being born.

Cloning requires intact DNA from the extinct species, which at the time dashed hopes of recreating animals such as the Tasmanian thylacine. The current aim of several groups of researchers is therefore to use cells from the closest living species and modify their genes to obtain DNA as close as possible to that of the extinct animal.

This genetic engineering is being applied to the recovery of the passenger pigeon ( Ectopistes migratorius ), extinguished in 1914 by massive hunting, and of which it was said that its immense flocks obscured the North American sky. The Great Passenger Pigeon Comeback project began in 2012 with the aim of editing the DNA of the band-tailed pigeon ( Patagioenas fasciata ), the closest living relative, and recreate the extinct bird.

The passenger pigeon project is the work of Revive & Restore , an initiative that also pursues the de-extinction of other species like the heath hen (Tympanuchus cupido cupido) , which went extinct in 1932. But undoubtedly, the idea that has most caught the attention of the media and the public is the possible resurrection of one of the most iconic animals of prehistory-the woolly mammoth .

With support from Revive & Restore, the team led by geneticist George Church at Harvard University (USA) set out to introduce mammoth genes, identified from animals preserved in ice, into the genome of its closest current relative, the Asian elephant. The team has already succeeded with some genes related to small ears, fur and cold hardiness. In 2021, Church and tech entrepreneur Ben Lamm founded , a species de-extinction start-up that has taken over the mammoth project from Revive & Restore.

De-extinction projects have received a fresh boost in recent years thanks to the development of CRISPR technology , the molecular gene-editing tool that has made it possible to modify DNA with much greater ease and precision than more traditional systems. The launch of Colossal is based on the fact that Church is one of the pioneers of this technology, which he used to introduce the first mammoth genes into the elephant genome. CRISPR has also revitalised other de-extinction projects: Revive & Restore aims to obtain transgenic pigeons that carry the gene for Cas9 , the enzyme responsible for cutting DNA with the CRISPR system. The complete sequencing of the thylacine genome in 2017 from samples preserved in alcohol has rekindled interest in its de-extinction , the first project of which was abandoned in 2005. However, there are serious doubts about whether any of these promises will materialise, as de-extinction projects have often been overly optimistic in their timelines .

Should we bring extinct species back to life?

The technical challenge is not the only obstacle to overcome on the road to de-extinction. Experts like Iacona not only wonder if we can bring some extinct species back to life, but whether we should: "There is discussion about the ethical and ecological implications," she says. The main concern of Iacona is that this commitment dilutes the need to conserve the biodiversity that we still have today. "It does have the very real potential to distract us from the more effective and efficient ways of dealing with imminent conservation problems."

But another danger of resuscitating extinct species, especially long-lost ones, is their environmental impact . "I would love to see mammoths too," evolutionary biologist and environmental scientist Alexandre Robert of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris tells . But a species is much more than just a species, he adds: "Even if you are able to reconstruct a mammoth, you will not necessarily be able to recreate a population that will persist, grow, adapt and play a functional role in its ecosystem."

The problem, Robert explains, is that the habitat of the woolly giant no longer exists. "The world where mammoths used to roam has been replaced by another world we call the Anthropocene." Church's project involves releasing the mammoths into the Pleistocene Park , a Siberian tundra reserve where Russian scientists aim to recreate their former habitat. But on this planet modified for the convenience of humans, it does not seem simple to find a place for these animals without causing irreversible ecological damage. "At present, it is impossible to know what will happen if we decide to bring them back to life," concludes Robert. But what is clear to experts is what we should not do: rescue animals from extinction to lock them up in zoos. "It would be unethical to relegate a species to perpetual captivity," says Iacona.

Javier Yanes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Ventana al Conocimiento (Knowledge Window)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animals on the Verge of De-Extinction 🦣 | OpenMind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The quagga, a South African zebra with stripes on only the front half of its body, became extinct on 12 August 1883, when the last specimen died in the Amsterdam Zoo. A century later, in 1988, the quagga was brought back to life.

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Reasons to Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To)

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Reasons to Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To)

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: There are 5 main pros and cons of de-extinction based on the Standford researchers
Facts:
-There are three ways of bringing animals back which are by cloning, back breeding, and genetic engineering
Dialogue:
Summary:
They could offer insight into the evolution of the environment and nature that we don't have now.

It could be a big step towards new technological advances like genetic engineering.

Damaged ecosystems could be restored with the help o this brought-back species.

If people push plants and animals to extinction then we owe them to try and come back.

It would be very cool to have historical species to come back.

APA:
Breanna.D(2013, Apr,4) 5 reasons to bring back animals and 5 reasons not to. Discover. retrieved from:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/5-reasons-to-bring-back-extinct-animals-and-5-reasons-not-to

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Would you like to see a real, live wooly mammoth? Or how about a Tasmanian tiger in the flesh? Scientists have already finagled a few ways to resurrect extinct species from their evolutionary graves. Even muckier than the scientific methods themselves, though, are the social, ethical and legal ramifications of so-called de-extinction.

In Science today, two Stanford researchers tackle this tricky topic to parse out exactly what we have to gain and lose from de-extinction technologies. Using the passenger pigeon as a thought experiment, another paper in the same issue looks at the fears and excitement of leaders in the field of genomics.

There are three main ways of bringing back extinct species, according to the Stanford researchers: backbreeding, genetic engineering, and cloning. With backbreeding, scientists use a living species that is genetically similar to the extinct species, and selectively breed it for the traits of the now-extinct species. Genetic engineering depends on existing DNA samples of the extinct species; scientists could bring them back to life by targeting and replacing specific genomic sequences in a closely-related living species. Finally, if viable cell nuclei from the extinct species are available, it can be cloned using a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer - a tested but as-of-yet unsuccessful method for extinct species.

Based on the current state of the science, the Stanford researchers distill de-extinction down to five pros and five cons:

Benefits of De-Extinction:

Objections to De-Extinction:

If an extinct animal were brought back to life in the lab, the authors point out that it would still lack many of a species' key characteristics, such as epigenetics, environment and social groups. Plus it would bring along with it a number of complicated legalities relating to the Endangered Species Act and patent laws. And that doesn't even get into the messy world of if and how such resurrections should be regulated.

In the end, both papers seem to draw open-ended conclusions. But if the practice is really as inevitable as it seems, the authors say the most interesting part will be seeing how humanity reacts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Reasons to Bring Back Extinct Animals (And 5 Reasons Not To)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Would you like to see a real, live wooly mammoth? Or how about a Tasmanian tiger in the flesh? Scientists have already finagled a few ways to resurrect extinct species from their evolutionary graves. Even muckier than the scientific methods themselves, though, are the social, ethical and legal ramifications of so-called de-extinction.

# data[].attributes.headline
13 Biggest Pros and Cons of De-Extinction

# data[].attributes.subject
13 Biggest Pros and Cons of De-Extinction

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: De-extinction is not possible.
Dialogue:
-what are the  balancing benefits of bringing the animals back?
Summary:
They have gone extinct because we humans have exploited them.

When a specie goes extinct if it had a disease impacted, it would disappear, but if we den bring back that specie the disease would come back and cause health problems to us and other animals.

If we bring back a specie of animal we can maybe not have the habitat they have to live in because environments have changed and that could have an impact on them.

Jenna Small ( a reviewer) said that if we bring now five species of animals that don't exist more than 42 species of animals could be affected by them and cause extinction for those 42 species, so if we bring back a specie we can also lose species.

If we bring back historical animals like the Mammoth, they would be in captivity and stay in a zoo or a closed safe place because we wouldn't want them to die or something happens to them. That would cause the animal many more problems like mental ones.
APA
(2019, Sep 18),13 Biggest pros and cons of De-extinction.Connectus. retrieved from: https://connectusfund.org/13-biggest-pros-and-cons-
of-de-extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In February 2017, scientists announced plans to create a live wooly mammoth in the next 24 months through a process known as de-extinction. When a plant or animal goes extinct, then every member of that species has died. Some of these animals are quite famous, like the Tasmanian tiger and the Mauritius dodo bird.

De-extinction makes it possible to bring an extinct species back to life through the DNAL cloning process. The team that wants to bring back the wooly mammoth, which includes George Church of Harvard University, will use DNA taken from the bodies of the animals trapped in permafrost or ice for up to 10,000 years. Then they plan to mix that genetic information with that of the ancient animal's closest relative, the Asian elephant.

DNA has a half-life of 521 years, which means it is only 50% viable after that amount of time. Since the last known living wooly mammoth died at least 4,000 years ago, the only way to resurrect the animal is to use a current one. The dodo and the Tasmanian tiger might have different results.

List of the Pros of De-Extinction

1. It would give us access to a bevy of new scientific information.
Many of the animals that have gone extinct on our planet passed away before modern science developed. That means we are left with illustrations and observations from those who were alive at the time. Using the de-extinction process to bring them back would allow us to gain more insights into how our world works. This work could help us to discover how the processes of evolution work, what natural resources were once available, and additional information that is not currently available to us.

2. There could be environmental benefits to consider with de-extinction.
There are several damaged and threatened ecosystems throughout the world that struggle because of plant or animal extinction. If we follow this process, then the advantage to consider includes restoration. By creating the balance in the biome once again that nature needs, we could see several environmental benefits begin to develop. It could help to reduce or eliminate some of the issues that we are encountering in the world today when there are too many predators or too much prey.

3. It provides a unique opportunity to experience the past.
For Generation X'ers, Baby Boomers and even some Millennials, the only experience they have with the past are pictures that are in textbooks. Everyone knows what a wooly mammoth is and when they lived, but that is a different experience than contemplating the idea of creating a new one. There is a definite advantage to consider when getting to hang out with the species that have been gone for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. To see them alive and kicking again would be a tremendous accomplishment for humanity.

4. We can provide a measure of justice for the planet.
There are several species that have encountered extinction because of human activities, including poaching. If we are the ones that have pushed specific animals and plants past the brink of destruction, then proponents suggest that there is an equal responsibility to fix the problem. We might owe it to those that have passed on to bring them back as a way to provide a sense of justice for our behaviors.

5. It gives us the foundation for more technological advances.
The 100-year Starship Program is a process that does more than look at the idea of building a vessel that can travel throughout our solar system. It encourages the development of new technologies and processes that would make such a journey possible. We could experience the same advantage when working toward the restoration of species through de-extinction. The genetic engineering process could develop tremendously when our emphasis is on the restoration of a specific species, much like Church's team with the wooly mammoth.

6. The information generated from de-extinction would help us preserve more species.
The techniques that we use to bring back extinct animals can apply to our threatened and endangered species as well. It would be a way to help us bring back genetics to a plant or animal gene line so that the risk of a bottleneck is severely reduced. Although there are certainly some risks to consider with this practice, we could apply the technology to various improvements in animal health too. Imagine birds that can't catch the flu or animals that could provide anti-cancer genes.

List of the Cons of De-Extinction

1. This process continues the issue of exploitation.
One of the primary reasons why animals have gone extinct in modern times is because humans have exploited them. There are several plants that have gone through the same process. If we begin the work of de-extinction, then are we not still exploiting life for purposes that are solely ours? Critics suggest that the idea of bringing back species could cause even more harm to them and our planet, even if they are some biome balancing benefits that could begin to appear over time.

2. There is the threat of new disease with de-extinction.
When an entire species goes extinct, then the diseases that impacted their health disappear from the planet. Going through the process of de-extinction could cause some of the pathogens, bacteria, or viruses to come back with them. We have no way of knowing if there would be human contagions associated with some of the creatures, especially if they come from the ancient world. Although it is a tragedy that many species have gone extinct over time, it may be safer for human health to avoid this area of science altogether.

3. It may not change biomes or environments for the better.
If we can immediately restore an extinct species to its usual environment, then there is the potential to maintain homeostasis there. When there are several hundred years that have passed before the de-extinction process occurs, then the results could be very different. The returning species would be potentially alien to the environment because of the natural evolutionary process. Some might even act as an invasive species. Habitats change over time. Food sources may not even be available to some returning plants or animals. That means their roles in the new ecosystems would change too.

4. This work could change scientific priorities in other fields.
Our current work in most fields involves looking at how the current environment can help us all to live healthy lives. If we progress toward work that involves de-extinction, then our priorities in conservation or medical research might shift. Critics suggest that there would be no reason to start funding endangered species programs because we could restore them if they become extinct for some reason. There would likely be a whole set of complicated legal issues with this practice as well, with the costs of litigation potentially higher than the work needed to bring back plants or animals that have passed away already.

5. There could be unforeseen consequences to these actions.
The idea of de-extinction to some is simple science, but to others, this practice is one that is comparable to playing God. Is it wrong to bring something back that is no longer present on our planet? The unforeseen consequences that could happen when animals like the wooly mammoth come back could put our planet on the brink of turmoil. It may even impact how each of us approaches life. We are already seeing industries pop up that offer to clone your dog or cat for you. Could humans be next?

6. De-extinction could cause even more species to go extinct.
In a review of the key points of de-extinction for New Zealand, writer Jenna Small notes for Science Glory that there are new risks that would occur for our current species with this process. "To resurrect New Zealand's 11 extinct species, three times as many endangered species would go extinct," she writes. "...[T]he cost to bring back five extinct species from New South Wales could help to preserve up to 42 living species."

The cost of de-extinction is a significant disadvantage that is not always discussed. Estimated conservation costs for the warblers on Chatham Island is somewhere near $400,000. That expense is significantly less than what it would take to go through the de-extinction process.

7. It would force the new animals to live in captivity.
When we look at the de-extinction process, the reality of this work is that each animal born from it will already be in captivity. Even Church's wooly mammoth team admits that the goal of the program, if successful, would be to keep the animals with their Asian elephant parents in zoos until they were old enough to establish herds in the colder climate areas of the planet.

We also know that it is an exceptionally slow process. The 24-month deadline to create a wooly mammoth has come and gone without full success. The next steps that Church's team must take are to reprogram the fibroblasts into induced pluripotent cells and development tissue types that help them to study the impact of mammoth mutations on cell traits.

The idea of bringing back extinct species is exciting. It is a scientific accomplishment that could change the world in many positive ways. There is also a lot of work that we must still do before we can produce the first generation of any species that has already passed away.

We have so far been quite unsuccessful with our efforts in this scientific field, but progress is happening. A 2009 effort to bring back a Pyrenean Ibex resulted in a live birth, although the animal died shortly after due to several birth defects in its lungs.

When we carefully examine the pros and cons of de-extinction, it is clear that there are open-ended conclusions that both sides can draw upon as they make their argument. There may be a day when this work is inevitable. That means the question involves a "can we" vs. a "should we" debate where individual perspectives will vary, and no definitive conclusion may ever become available.

Author Bio
Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Biggest Pros and Cons of De-Extinction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In February 2017, scientists announced plans to create a live wooly mammoth in the next 24 months through a process known as de-extinction. When a plant or animal goes extinct, then every member of that species has died. Some of these animals are quite famous, like the Tasmanian tiger and the Mauritius dodo bird.

# data[].attributes.headline
De-extinction: Can we bring extinct animals back from the dead?

# data[].attributes.subject
De-extinction: Can we bring extinct animals back from the dead?

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: Thanks to technological advances and gene-editing technology, it is possible to de-extinct a creature so it is able to live in the wild and be able to breed naturally.
Arguments / Facts:
- Animal has to be able to breed naturally
- Extinct animals lumber through their natural habitat.
-De-extinction is in a slow process of development
- The first animal de-extinted was in 2003 and scientists
resurrected the Pyrenean ibex
- Pyrenean ibex was the first animal to be brought back from extinction and the first to go extinct twice.
-Depending on the species, to de extinct scientist  use  ‘back-breeding
Dialogue
we believe that de-extincion is fascinating but we are scared for the animals that can be revived for later die
Summary
De-extinction aims to create populations of healthy, genetically vibrant animals that can be released into the wild and that are able to breed naturally and contribute positively to the environment.
Every day, between 30 to 150 species disappear and we have dicovered that extinction rate is 1,000 times higher than before human started to evole. Now a days our world suffers a massive extinction rate, and de-extinction is a way to undo all the extinction we humans have caused.
The first de-extincion was in 2003  scientists resurrected the Pyrenean ibex.
It died a few minutes after she was born, so the Pyrenean ibex was the first animal to be brought back from extinction, and the first to go extinct twice.
Thanks to technological advances and gene-editing technology scientists will soon be able to bring back species from extinction.
APA
Pilcher, H. (2022, June 28). De-extinction: Can we bring extinct animals back from the dead? BBC Science Focus Magazine. Retrieved January 26, 2023, from https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/de-extinction-can-we-bring-extinct-animals-back-from-the-dead/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine travelling to the wilds of Siberia to see a woolly mammoth lumbering through its natural habitat. Or getting up close to a living, breathing Tasmanian tiger. Thanks to developments in cloning and gene-editing technology, the prospect of bringing back extinct animals is looking more likely than ever.

De-extinction is about creating populations of healthy, genetically vibrant animals that can be released into the wild where they'll be able to breed naturally and contribute positively to the environment. But it's not just about bringing back the dead.

The same techniques being developed to help resurrect extinct species can also be used to help save living species on the brink of extinction.

So how does de-extinction work, what are its limits, and do we really need to bring back long-dead animals?

How feasible is de-extinction?

De-extinction is very much a science in development, but it's moving at a rapid pace. The first milestone was in 2003 when European scientists resurrected the Pyrenean ibex, a type of mountain goat that had gone extinct a few years earlier.

Sadly, the kid died a few minutes after she was born, so the poor ibex was not just the first animal to be brought back from extinction, but also the first to go extinct twice. Since then, scientists have been refining their methods and developing new de-extinction techniques.
Read more about extinction:
In Australia, Prof Michael Archer and colleagues are working on bringing back the gastric-brooding frog, a remarkable animal that nurtured its young in its stomach before burping up fully-formed froglets. So far, the team has produced embryos that 'almost' turn into tadpoles but not quite.

The next step is to persuade these embryos to turn into frogs, something that Archer is convinced they will achieve.

What other animals could we make de-extinct?

In America, scientists are working on bringing back the passenger pigeon, a rosy-breasted bullet of a bird that once flocked in the billions; and the heath hen, a stumpy avian wallflower that lived in the scrubby plains of New England.

More like this

In the UK, researchers are considering whether or not to bring back the so-called 'Penguin of the North', the great auk.

Meanwhile, in South Africa, they're trying to revive the quagga, a bizarre zebra-like creature with a stripeless behind! In South Korea, Japan and the US, three separate teams are racing to bring back that most iconic of Ice Age beasts, the woolly mammoth.

How do you 'de-extinct' something?

It depends on the species. Some projects use 'back-breeding'. Quaggas, for example, are related to living zebras. So scientists are choosing the zebras that look most like quaggas and letting them breed. The aim, over successive generations, is to create animals that look like quaggas.

Other projects, however, involve assisted reproduction and some rather elegant genetics.

Some are using cloning; others, stem cell science. For example, Prof George Church at Harvard Medical School aims to create a mammoth by 'editing' mammoth genes into elephant cells.

Will these animals be the same as the originals?

No, they can never be exactly the same. When he is done, Church will have created not a true mammoth, but an elephant with a sprinkling of judiciously placed mammoth DNA.

It will have long, shaggy fur, thick rolls of insulating body fat, and haemoglobin that can ferry oxygen around the body at sub-zero temperatures.

This will be an animal that looks like a mammoth, but is really an elephant whose DNA has been altered so it can live in the cold. You could call it a 'mammophant' if you like, or an 'elemoth'.

Added to that, we now realise that all animals are a product of their DNA and of the environment in which they live, along with the interaction between the two.

Created in a lab, nurtured in the womb of a modern elephant, and raised in a world that has changed radically since mammoths went extinct thousands of years ago, the experiences of this new-age pachyderm will be different to those of its Ice Age doppelganger... all of which will conspire to make it less similar to the original woolly mammoth.

But does this matter? Many will argue that, if the de-extinct animal looks and acts like its predecessor, then that's good enough.

Could we resurrect dinosaurs?

Sadly (or thankfully), a real-life Jurassic Park is out of the question. There are limitations on which species can undergo de-extinction. First up, scientists need to have a source of the animal's DNA.

Sometimes this comes from preserved museum specimens or from cells that have been collected from live animals and frozen away. Sometimes it can come from fossils.

But DNA disintegrates over time, meaning that after a couple of million years there is simply no DNA left. Dinosaurs famously went extinct 65 million years ago, so their DNA is lost forever. No DNA, no dinosaurs. Apologies, Hollywood.

And if you're hoping to meet a dodo, that icon of extinction, then don't hold your breath either. Although it died out comparatively recently - a few hundred years ago - its final resting place, Mauritius, was simply too hot to preserve its DNA.

What's the point of de-extinction?

There are lots of good reasons to bring back extinct animals. All animals perform important roles in the ecosystems they live in, so when lost species are returned, so too are the 'jobs' they once performed.

Woolly mammoths, for example, were gardeners. They knocked down saplings, ate grass and fertilised the ground via their nutrient-rich dung. But when they disappeared, the gardening stopped, biodiversity plummeted and the lush mammoth steppe was replaced by species-poor tundra.

Studies suggest that if large grazers were returned to the far north, biodiversity would increase again.

It could be the same for other de-extinct animals, too.

De-extinction provides a means to enhance biodiversity and help restore the health of ailing ecosystems. It could be a conservation tool, and by choosing to bring back animals that are genetically unique - like the gastric-brooding frog or the Tasmanian tiger (a stripy, pouched, dog-like marsupial also known as the thylacine) - we could replace not just twigs, but entire branches on the tree of life.

Then there are the benefits that humans could glean. The gastric-brooding frog somehow converted its stomach into a makeshift womb. It stopped producing stomach acid so it didn't digest its young. If scientists could figure out the changes involved in this, it could lead to treatments for stomach ulcers or could help people recovering from stomach surgery.

Every day, between 30 and 150 species disappear from the face of our planet, and studies reveal that extinction rates today are 1,000 times higher than they were during pre-human times.

We live in a time of mass extinction, and de-extinction has been proposed as a key way to undo some of that harm. To reverse extinction would undoubtedly be a huge moment for the fields of biology and conservation, and a feat that could motivate future generations of scientists and wildlife defenders.

Where would the animals live?

De-extinction is a process that begins with creating a single animal in the lab and then ends, many years later, with the release and survival of sustainable populations in the wild.

Ecosystems are fluid, dynamic entities - they change quickly. But if a species has gone extinct recently, there is a chance it could be returned to its original ecosystem. The Tasmanian tiger is thought to have gone extinct 80 years ago, but in that time, its native woodland has stayed more or less the same - this de-extinct species could potentially 'go home'.

A de-extinct Christmas Island rat, however, would not be so lucky. Since its extinction over 100 years ago, Christmas Island has become riddled with invasive species that would likely pose a problem. In this case, a suitable alternative habitat would have to be found.

What is the ideal candidate for de-extinction?

It may seem an odd thing to say, but one of the ideal de-extinction candidates could be an animal that is actually still alive... just.

There are only two northern white rhinos left alive on the planet, both of them female, who spend their days at the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya. But they are too old, too ill and too related to breed naturally.

So the northern white rhino is 'functionally extinct': the ghost of a magnificent species that once manicured the diverse African grasslands on which so many other species depend.

Saving it counts as an act of de-extinction. For many reasons, it's easier to de-extinct an animal from the recent past than it is from dim and distant history. But it's easier still to focus on those that are still with us. The northern white rhino is currently the focus of a de-extinction project.

Is it ethical to resurrect extinct animals?

Some people are against de-extinction because they say it feels unnatural. They are wary of genetic modification and accuse scientists of playing God. But proponents argue that the techniques being developed to make de-extinction happen all have natural counterparts in the wild.

For example, there are species of lizard that reproduce via cloning, while the gene-editing process being used to bring back the mammoth hails from a primitive bacterial immune system.

Just as IVF has become an accepted medical technique, so de-extinction researchers hope that concerns about their experiments will fade once the science has proved its worth.

Critics also claim that de-extinction is stealing funds and attention from traditional conservation efforts.

But none of the big wildlife charities are putting any money into de-extinction, and a big resurrection success story could even help to draw attention to the plight of the world's wildlife, rather than detract from it.

It's true that it's still too early to know exactly how de-extinction will pan out, but its supporters argue that if we don't at least develop the technology needed to make it happen, we'll never make a genuine assessment of its worth.

Could we bring back our pets?

The labs at Sooam Biotech Research Foundation in Seoul, South Korea, regularly produce cloned dogs for the Korean National Police Agency and will even clone your pet pooch for around £65,000.

But although the doppelganger will look like your faithful friend, it will never be the same. Just as identical twins develop different personalities, physical characteristics and diseases, 'Fido II' will grow into a different dog.

And how about... Elvis?

If we can resurrect animals, could we bring back long-dead humans? In theory, it's possible. Take Elvis Presley as an example. Scientists could retrieve DNA from some of his iconic quiff, sequence his full genetic code, edit the 'genetic essence' of Elvis into a regular human cell and then use that to create a cloned baby.

In reality, though, it's a terrible idea.

Reproductive human cloning is illegal and unethical, and the process carries many risks.

What's more, a clone of Elvis may well end up more into drum 'n' bass and Dr Martens than rock 'n' roll and blue suede shoes.

But this cheeky thought experiment does show how far the science underpinning de-extinction can take us. Elvis? Maybe not.

But woolly mammoths and Tasmanian tigers? Don't bet against it.

De-extinction: what we still don't know

Although we've been cloning animals for years, we still don't understand how it actually works.

During the process, DNA inside an adult cell is somehow reprogrammed to a more youthful state, so that it can drive embryonic development.

It's like restoring the factory setting on your phone, but no one knows exactly how it happens or how to fully control it.

Crack that, and scientists stand a better chance of creating healthy, viable animals.

How resurrected animals will be protected

To qualify for legal protection, an organism must be listed as endangered, but for that, the animal must be living in the wild.

The first few generations of any newly resurrected species would be kept in captivity while researchers checked their health, so during this time their legal status would be uncertain.

Without protection, the animals could be threatened by poaching or habitat loss.

How de-extinct animals will fare in the wild

When it comes to releasing the animals, all we can do is study their previous ecology, and send them into the most suitable environment available.

We'll then need to monitor them carefully: it's vital to know why a species went extinct first time round, to make sure it doesn't happen again.

With each successive re-wilding attempt, we'll learn more about maximising the animals' chances of survival.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
De-extinction: Can we bring extinct animals back from the dead?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine travelling to the wilds of Siberia to see a woolly mammoth lumbering through its natural habitat. Or getting up close to a living, breathing Tasmanian tiger. Thanks to developments in cloning and gene-editing technology, the prospect of bringing back extinct animals is looking more likely than ever.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Woolly Mammoth Represents the Beginnings of De-Extinction

# data[].attributes.subject
The Woolly Mammoth Represents the Beginnings of De-Extinction

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: Years are passing and we don't revive any animal
Arguments/Facts:
- They need to find many cells
Dialogue:
- Why many vertebrates are extinct?
Summary:
It talks about many scientists trying to revive animals but they couldn't, they started to experiment to revive them about 200 to 300 years ago. It talks about the species that are more common to revive and the ones that are not, the ones that are not are the ones that are more difficult because they have many cells and they can't find them.
APA
No name, (no year). De-extinction, https://colossal.com/de-extinction/

# 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.headline
Why ‘De-Extinction’ Is Impossible (But Could Work Anyway) | Quanta Magazine

# data[].attributes.subject
Why ‘De-Extinction’ Is Impossible (But Could Work Anyway) | Quanta Magazine

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
The most exact replicas of an extinct animal are from a preserved cell from that exact animal.
Arguments/facts:
- Thomas Gilbert tries to revive the Christmas rat

- The only thing selective breeding has been able to do is to create an animal hybrid.

- Animals extinct a long time ago aren't able to be de-extinct

Dialogue:
- Did Thomas gilbert succeed in the experiment?
- If they had preserved the cells of mammoths they would be revived?
-Do the hybrids from the experiments survive?
Summary:
Thomas Gilbert, a researcher and professor at the University of Copenhagen, researched the practicality of de-extinction by attempting to revive the Christmas Island rat, which DNA is excellently preserved.  Also, the Christmas Island rat was related to the standard brown Norway rat. This rat is important because studies of living species have shown that alterations in their DNA can have significant effects, and be close to reviving an extinct creature. Unfortunately, by genetic engineering and selective breeding experiments, they are only able to create a hybrid animal, rather than a resurrected animal. The closest you can get to an exact genetic replica of an extinct animal is a clone created from a preserved cell from the species you want de-extinct. For that reason, many extinct animals that are extinct for a long time ago are not possible to de-extinct.
APA
Saplakoglu, Y., & Quanta Magazine moderates comment to facilitate an informed, substantive. (2022, May 9). Why 'de-extinction' is impossible (but could work anyway). Quanta Magazine. Retrieved February 1, 2023, from https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-de-extinction-is-impossible-but-could-work-anyway-20220509/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why ‘De-Extinction’ Is Impossible (But Could Work Anyway) | Quanta Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Several projects are aiming to bring back mammoths and other species that have vanished from the planet. Whether that’s technically possible is beside the point.

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea:
Scientifics trying to think about reviving mamuts
Arguments/facts:
- Talks about the video
- Said that the bones of many creatures are in a good state (dinosaurs, mamuts)
-They could probably agree that de-extinction could happen
Dialogue:
-I think Jurassic park doesn't match very well this topic
Summary:
It talks about jurassic park, it could be the first film talking about de-extinction. Scientifics could prove that de-extinction could happen in real life, because some bones of creatures that are extinct are in a good state, so we could probably bring them to live
APA:
Alfonso, P. (2019). Des-Extinción, https://www.rtve.es/play/videos/somos-documentales/des-extincion/6230353/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Documental galardonado con el Premio Prismas a la divulgación científica. En 1993 "Jurassic Park" dejó boquiabierto a medio mundo. La des-extinción entraba e...