Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 427–441 | Cite as

The Extinction and De-Extinction of Species

Research Article

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the following four alternative ways of understanding the outcomes of resurrection biology (also known as de-extinction). Implications of each of the ways are discussed with respect to concepts of species and extinction. (1) Replication: animals created by resurrection biology do not belong to the original species but are copies of it. The view is compatible with finality of extinction as well as with certain biological and ecological species concepts. (2) Re-creation: animals created are members of the original species but, despite their existence, the species remains extinct. The view is incompatible with all species concepts presented. (3) Non-extinction: animals produced belong to the original species which actually never went extinct. The view may be consistent with phenetic and phylogenetic species concepts as well as with finality of extinction. (4) According to literal resurrection, resurrection biology is successful in reversing extinction through the creation of new members of species that once went extinct. This view presupposes non-finality of extinction and it is compatible with phenetic species concepts. It is notable that no species or extinction concept is consistent with all possible views of resurrection biology nor is any view of resurrection biology consistent with all species or extinction concepts. Thus, one’s views regarding species and extinction determine which views one can adopt regarding resurrection biology and vice versa.

Keywords

Resurrection biology De-extinction Concept of species Concept of extinction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank two anonymous referees for their useful comments on the earlier version of the paper.

References

  1. Archer, M. (2013). Second chance for Tasmanian tigers and fantastic frogs. http://longnow.org/revive/tedxdeextinction. Accessed 29 November 2015.
  2. Bentley, R. A., Hahn, M. W., & Shennan, S. J. (2004). Random drift and culture change. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 271(1547), 1443–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhullar, B. A. S., Morris, Z. S., Sefton, E. M., Tok, A., Tokita, M., Namkoong, B., Camacho, J., Burnham, D. A., & Abzhanov, A. (2015). A molecular mechanism for the origin of a key evolutionary innovation, the bird beak and palate, revealed by an integrative approach to major transitions in vertebrate history. Evolution, 69(7), 1665–1667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa.Google Scholar
  5. De Queiroz, K. (1998). The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation. In R. Wilson (Ed.), Species: new interdisciplinary essays (pp. 49–90). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Delord, J. (2007). The nature of extinction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38(3), 656–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delord, J. (2014). Can we really re-create an extinct species by cloning? A metaphysical analysis. In M. Oksanen & H. Siipi (Eds.), The ethics of animal re-creation and modification: reviving, rewilding, restoring (pp. 22–39). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devitt, M. (2008). Resurrecting biological essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 75(3), 344–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dobzhansky, T. (1937). Genetics and the Origin of Species (No. 11). Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Elliot, R. (1994). Extinction, restoration, naturalness. Environmental Ethics, 16(2), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ereshefsky, M. (2010). Species. URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/species. Accessed 29 November 2015.
  12. Folch, J., Cocero, M. J., Chesné, P., Alabart, J. L., Domínguez, V., Cognié, Y., Roche, A., Fernandez-Arias, A., Marti, J. I., Sanchez, P., Echegoyen, E., Beckers, J. F., Sanchez Bonastre, A., & Vignon, X. (2009). First birth of an animal from an extinct subspecies (Capra pyrenaica pyrenaica) by cloning. Theriogenology, 71(6), 1026–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garrick, R. C., Benavides, E., Russello, M. A., Hyseni, C., Edwards, D. L., Gibbs, J. P., Tapia, W., Ciofi, C., & Caccone, A. (2014). Lineage fusion in Galápagos giant tortoises. Molecular Ecology, 23(21), 5276–5290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garvey, B. (2007). Philosophy of biology. Stocksfield: Acumen Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Ghiselin, M. T. (1987). Species concepts, individuality, and objectivity. Biology and Philosophy, 2(2), 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greer, A. (2009). Cloning the thylacine. Quadrant, 53(7–8), 28–39.Google Scholar
  17. Gunn, A. (1991). The restoration of species and natural environments. Environmental Ethics, 13(4), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hiendleder, S., Zakhartchenko, V., & Wolf, E. (2004). Mitochondria and the success of somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning: from nuclear–mitochondrial interactions to mitochondrial complementation and mitochondrial DNA recombination. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, 17(2), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horner, J. R., & Gorman, J. (2009). How to build a dinosaur: extinction doesn't have to be forever. Penguin.Google Scholar
  20. Hull, D. L. (1965). The effect of essentialism on taxonomy: two thousand years of stasis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 15, 2–32 16: 1-18.Google Scholar
  21. Hull, D. L. (1980). Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 11, 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitcher, P. (1984). Species. Philosophy of Science, 51(2), 308–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loi, P., Wakayama, T., Saragustry, J., Fulka, J., & Ptak, G. (2011). Biological time machines: a realistic approach for cloning an extinct mammal. Endangered Species Research, 14(3), 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayden, R. L. (1997). A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. Claridge, M. F., Dawah, H. A., & Wilson, M. R. (eds). Species: the units of biodiversity (pp. 381–423). London: Chapman & Hall Ltd.Google Scholar
  25. O’Connor, M. R. (2015). Resurrection science. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  26. Okasha, S. (2002). Darwinian metaphysics: species and the question of essentialism. Synthese, 131(2), 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oksanen, M., & Siipi, H. (2014). The ethics of animal re-creation and modification: reviving, rewilding, restoring. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pace, M. L., Cole, J. J., Carpenter, S. R., & Kitchell, J. F. (1999). Trophic cascades revealed in diverse ecosystems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14(12), 483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paterson, H. G. H. (1985). The recognition concept of species. In E.S. Vrba (ed.), Species and Speciation. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum Monograph no. 4.Google Scholar
  30. Piña-Aguilar, R. E., Lopez-Saucedo, J., Sheffield, R., Ruiz-Galaz, L. I., de Barroso-Padilla, J. J., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, A. (2009). Revival of extinct species using nuclear transfer: hope for the mammoth, true for the Pyrenean ibex, but is it time for “conservation cloning”? Cloning and Stem Cells, 11(3), 341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Poulakakis, N., Glaberman, S., Russello, M., Beheregaray, L. B., Ciofi, C., Powell, J. R., & Caccone, A. (2008). Historical DNA analysis reveals living descendants of an extinct species of Galápagos tortoise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(40), 15464–15469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raup, D. M. (1991). Extinction: bad genes or bad luck? London: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  33. Raup, D. M., & Stanley, S. M. (1971). Principles of paleontology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  34. Redford, K. H., Adams, W., & Mace, G. M. (2013). Synthetic biology and conservation of nature: wicked problems and wicked solutions. PLoS Biology, 11(4), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salsberg, C. A. (2000). Resurrecting the woolly mammoth: science, law, ethics, politics, and religion. Stanford Technology Law Review, 1, 1–30.Google Scholar
  36. Sherkow, J. S., & Greely, H. T. (2013). What if extinction is not forever? Science, 340(6128), 32–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siipi, H. (2014). Authenticity of animals. In M. Oksanen & H. Siipi (Eds.), The ethics of animal re-creation and modification: reviving, rewilding, restoring (pp. 22–39). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Simpson, G. G. (1961). Principles of animal taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Stamos, D. N. (2003). The species problem. Lanhand: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  40. Stone, R. (2003). Mammoth: the resurrection of an ice age giant. Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  41. Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L., & Nowak, M. A. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, 371(1), 65–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Valen, L. (1976). Ecological species, multispecies, and oaks. Taxon, 25(2/3), 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wägele, J.-W. (2014). The necessity of biodiversity research: we are responsible for the quality of life of coming generations. In D. Lanzerath & M. Friele (Eds.), Concepts and values in biodiversity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Wilkins, J. S. (2009). Species: a history of the idea. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A. E., McWhir, J., Kind, A. J., & Campbell, K. H. S. (1999). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Clones and clones: facts and fantasies about human cloning, 21.Google Scholar
  46. Yashina, S., Gubin, S., Maksimovich, S., Yashina, A., Gakhova, E., & Gilichinsky, D. (2012). Regeneration of whole fertile plants from 30,000-y-old fruit tissue buried in Siberian permafrost. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(10), 4008–4013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zandt, B. J., ten Haken, B., van Dijk, J. G., & van Putten, M. J. (2011). Neural dynamics during anoxia and the “wave of death”. PloS One, 6(7), e22127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zimmer, C. (2013). Bringing them back to life. National Geographic, 223(4), 28–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy UnitUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  2. 2.Linfield CollegeMcMinnvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations