Skip to main content

Won’t Somebody Please Think of the Mammoths? De-extinction and Animal Welfare

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics volume 31, pages 785–803 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

De-extinction is the process through which extinct species can be brought back into existence. Although these projects have the potential to cause great harm to animal welfare, discussion on issues surrounding de-extinction have focussed primarily on other issues. In this paper, I examine the potential types of welfare harm that can arise through de-extinction programs, including problems with cloning, captive rearing and re-introduction. I argue that welfare harm should be an important consideration when making decisions on de-extinction projects. Though most of the proposed benefits of these projects are insufficient to outweigh the current potential welfare harm, these problems may be overcome with further development of the technology and careful selection of appropriate species as de-extinction candidates.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Or something closely resembling the species—see discussion on this point and its implications in the “Potential Issues with De-extinction” and “Restorative Benefits” sections. For the welfare concerns discussed in this paper, the distinction does not play a strong role, though may change weighting of potential benefits, as will be addressed in the “Restorative Benefits” section.

  2. Not all de-extinction projects aim at releasing animals back to the wild (Sandler 2014), and those which simply aim to create animals to hold in captivity for research or exhibition will not face this set of welfare problems, though the others, particularly those in the “Welfare Issues with Captive Rearing” section, will still apply.

References

  • Adams, W. M. (2017). Geographies of conservation I: De-extinction and precision conservation. Progress in Human Geography, 41(4), 534–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, B. (1995). Reintroduction, zoos, conservation, and animal welfare. In B. G. Norton, M. Hutchins, E. Stevens, & T. L. Maple (Eds.), Ethics on the ark (pp. 155–163). Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beever, J. (2017). The ontology of species: Commentary on Kasperbauer’s ‘Should We Bring Back the Passenger Pigeon? The Ethics of De-Extinction’. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 20(1), 18–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. R., Maloney, R. F., Steeves, T. E., Brazill-Boast, J., Possingham, H. P., & Seddon, P. J. (2017). Spending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(4), 0053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blockstein, D. E. (2017). We can’t bring back the passenger Pigeon: The ethics of deception around de-extinction. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 20(1), 33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho, A. E. (2015). Going the way of the dodo: De-extinction, dualisms, and reframing conservation. Washington University Law Review, 92(4), 849–906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campagna, C., Guevara, D., & Le Boeuf, B. (2017). De-scenting extinction: The promise of de-extinction may hasten continuing extinctions. Hastings Center Report, 47, S48–S53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (2014). The ethics of de-extinction. NanoEthics, 8(2), 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. A. (2000). “Restoration”—A misnomer? Science, 287(5456), 1203. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5456.1203b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. N., & Moran, M. D. (2016). An argument supporting de-extinction and a call for field research. Frontiers of Biogeography, 8(3), e28431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehm, C. (2017). De-extinction and deep questions about species conservation. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 20(1), 25–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiester, A. (2005). Ethical issues in animal cloning. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48(3), 328–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friese, C., & Marris, C. (2014). Making de-extinction mundane? PLoS Biology, 12(3), e1001825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamborg, C. (2014). What’s so special about reconstructing a mammoth? Ethics of breeding and biotechnology in re-creating extinct species. In M. Oksanen & H. Siipi (Eds.), The ethics of animal re-creation and modification (pp. 60–76). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gamborg, C., Gremmen, B., Christiansen, S. B., & Sandoe, P. (2010). De-domestication: Ethics at the intersection of landscape restoration and animal welfare. Environmental Values, 19(1), 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greely, H. T. (2017). Is de-extinction special? Hastings Center Report, 47, S30–S36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, L. A., Moehrenschlager, A., Gelling, M., Atkinson, R. P. D., Hughes, J., & Macdonald, D. W. (2013). Conflicting and complementary ethics of animal welfare considerations in reintroductions: Welfare in reintroductions. Conservation Biology, 27(3), 486–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN. (1998). Guidelines for re-introductions. IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist Group. https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2013-009.pdf

  • Jones, K. E. (2014). From dinosaurs to dodos: Who could and should we de-extinct? Frontiers of Biogeography, 6(1), 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, D. (2013). Reintroduction and de-extinction. BioScience, 63(9), 719–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperbauer, T. J. (2017). Should we bring back the passenger Pigeon? The ethics of de-extinction. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 20(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C. (2017). The unnaturalness objection to de-extinction: A critical evaluation. Animal Studies Journal, 6(1), 40–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, D. J., Hardesty-Moore, M., Halpern, B. S., & Young, H. S. (2017). A mammoth undertaking: Harnessing insight from functional ecology to shape de-extinction priority setting. Functional Ecology, 31(5), 1003–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan, J. (2002). The ethics of killing: Problems at the margins of life. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Narveson, J. (1973). Moral problems of population. The Monist, 57(1), 62–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B. G. (1995). Caring for nature: A broader look at animal stewardship. In B. G. Norton, M. Hutchins, E. Stevens, & T. L. Maple (Eds.), Ethics on the Ark (pp. 102–121). Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, A., Thévenin, C., Princé, K., Sarrazin, F., & Clavel, J. (2017). De-extinction and evolution. Functional Ecology, 31(5), 1021–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohwer, Y., & Marris, E. (2018). An analysis of potential ethical justifications for mammoth de-extinction and a call for empirical research. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 21, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. (2014). The ethics of reviving long extinct species: Reviving long extinct species. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 354–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. (2017). De-extinction: Costs, benefits and ethics. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(4), 0105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seddon, P. J., Moehrenschlager, A., & Ewen, J. (2014). Reintroducing resurrected species: Selecting de-extinction candidates. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(3), 140–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, B. (2015). How to clone a mammoth: The science of de-extinction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, B. (2017). Pathways to de-extinction: How close can we get to resurrection of an extinct species? Functional Ecology, 31(5), 996–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, E. (1968). Some aspects of the nutrition of semi-domestic reindeer. Symposium of the Zoological Society, London, 21, 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, D. D. (2017). Biases in the selection of candidate species for de-extinction. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 20(1), 21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N. (2003). Death of Dolly marks cloning milestone. Current Biology, 13(6), R209–R210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, C. (2013). Bringing them back to life. National Geographic, 223(4), 28–41.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship. Thanks to Seth Lazar for assistance and comments on drafts of this article. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers for their feedback, which helped improve and clarify this manuscript. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2016 Australasian Association of Philosophy conference, and benefitted greatly from the surrounding discussion there.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Philosophy, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Heather Browning

Authors
  1. Heather Browning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Browning.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Browning, H. Won’t Somebody Please Think of the Mammoths? De-extinction and Animal Welfare. J Agric Environ Ethics 31, 785–803 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9755-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9755-2

Keywords

  • De-extinction
  • Animal welfare
  • Cloning
  • Reintroduction