Extinction, de-extinction and conservation: a dangerous mix of ideas

Banks, Peter B.; Hochuli, Dieter F.

doi:10.7882/az.2016.012

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worth noting that divergent de-extinction definitions are more often, understandably, found in publications authored by social scientists and philosophers, typically trained to consider more abstract and varying components of a subject than biologists. Of publications authored by social scientists and philosophers, over half outline de-extinction stances widely differing from the IUCN definition [ 21 , 22 , 73 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 163 , 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 174 , 176 , 198 , 199 ], as opposed to less than a quarter of biologist lead papers [ 53 , 180 , 192 , 193 , 194 , 195 ]. If one re-evaluates all of the literature in light of the revised de-extinction definition provided here, then most other publications present definitions of de-extinction largely incongruent with actual practice [ 23 , 66 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 74 , 157 , 158 , 160 , 161 , 166 , 179 , 181 , 182 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 ], though authors’ departures to more abstract de-extinction concepts are building important philosophical ramifications for conservation science and the relationships of humans and non-human species.…”

Section: Coming To a Consensus: Restoring Centricity To Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

De-Extinction

Maillard

2018

Genes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

De-extinction projects for species such as the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon have greatly stimulated public and scientific interest, producing a large body of literature and much debate. To date, there has been little consistency in descriptions of de-extinction technologies and purposes. In 2016, a special committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published a set of guidelines for de-extinction practice, establishing the first detailed description of de-extinction; yet incoherencies in published literature persist. There are even several problems with the IUCN definition. Here I present a comprehensive definition of de-extinction practice and rationale that expounds and reconciles the biological and ecological inconsistencies in the IUCN definition. This new definition brings together the practices of reintroduction and ecological replacement with de-extinction efforts that employ breeding strategies to recover unique extinct phenotypes into a single “de-extinction” discipline. An accurate understanding of de-extinction and biotechnology segregates the restoration of certain species into a new classification of endangerment, removing them from the purview of de-extinction and into the arena of species’ recovery. I term these species as “evolutionarily torpid species”; a term to apply to species falsely considered extinct, which in fact persist in the form of cryopreserved tissues and cultured cells. For the first time in published literature, all currently active de-extinction breeding programs are reviewed and their progress presented. Lastly, I review and scrutinize various topics pertaining to de-extinction in light of the growing body of peer-reviewed literature published since de-extinction breeding programs gained public attention in 2013.

show abstract

Section: Coming To a Consensus: Restoring Centricity To Constructmentioning

confidence: 99%

De-Extinction

Maillard

2018

Genes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Endangered, or threatened, fauna has continued to hold the imagination of conservation initiatives, and non-threatened species, that is most species, have been relegated to a lesser, even a neglected, category for conservation action. Banks and Hochuli (2017) share this concern and considered that preventing extinction is the central driver of almost all conservation action. They further comment that most of the funding goes to removing extinction threats and recovering population of endangered species.…”

Section: The Rise Of Threatened Species In the Conservation Agenda Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

A dangerous idea in action: the hegemony of endangered species legislation and how it hinders biodiversity conservation

Lunney¹

2017

Australian Zoologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is part of the theme edition of Australian Zoologist-"Dangerous Ideas in Zoology" The dangerous zoological idea of conserving all the fauna Richard Dawkins (2006, p305), in his ' Afterword' to Brockman's (2006) engaging book, What is your dangerous idea?, considers that dangerous ideas are what have driven humanity onward. Dawkins noted that the book presents 108 intellectuals, commented on their ideas, then asked what was conspicuously under-represented in the book. He raised two points for discussion, eugenics, and the assumption of human moral uniqueness. Being a zoologist, he concluded that one way to dramatise the importance of such questions is to invoke the fact of evolution, that is, we are connected to all other living beings continuously and gradually, via the ancestors we share with them. Dawkins asks: what should our moral and political response be if relict populations of all the evolutionary intermediates of humans and chimpanzees were found, or if their genomes were used to engineer a chain of mating intermediates, thereby linking humans to chimpanzees via a living cline of fertile interbreeding? The dangerous idea that I venture here is not nearly so fantastical, but surely as morally complex. In fact, to pursue the option to conserve all existing species should not be a dangerous idea. The idea puts conservation of our fauna, and the habitats and natural areas where they thrive, at least on equal footing in any negotiations for the use of land and water for human developmentthat is what makes it dangerous. Dawkins (p205) writes that yesterday's dangerous idea is today's orthodoxy and tomorrow's cliché. To some considerable extent I have witnessed, and I am bold enough to claim to have contributed to, the change towards conservation of our natural areas and our fauna. From seeing the changes during my working life in NSW, since I first graduated in 1969, I am encouraged that we can conserve what remains of our natural legacy, but we have a long way to go to achieve that goal. We need to see that our happiness depends, in part, on conserving our natural world (Lunney (2017). Without that, conserving biodiversity will remain a radical idea. My approach to the dangerous idea of conserving all our fauna We can see how radical this idea is through an examination of the State of the Environment reports. These official reports from both the Commonwealth A dangerous idea in action: the hegemony of endangered species legislation and how it hinders biodiversity conservation

show abstract

“…Well‐meaning efforts to awaken public interest in conservation can also go wrong. Ecologists Peter Banks and Dieter Hochuli argue that extinction, de‐extinction, and conservation are a “dangerous mix of ideas.” Extinction is thought to be profoundly bad because it is total and irreversible, they point out, and de‐extinction challenges that view …”

Section: The Intersection Of Genetic Science and Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reclaiming Hope in Extinction Storytelling

Kohl¹

2017

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critics often take conservationists to task for delivering a constant barrage of bad news without offering a compelling vision of the future. Could recent advances in synthetic biology—an optimistic, forward‐looking field with a can‐do attitude—let conservationists develop a new vision and generate some better news? Synthetic biology and related gene‐editing applications could be used to address threats to species. Genetic interventions might also be used in plants to better protect biodiversity in U.S. rangelands and forests. One possibility has stood out in its ability to capture media attention and the public imagination—recreating extinct species. And perhaps a de‐extinction story could counter the seemingly relentless negativity in biodiversity talk. De‐extinction proponent Stewart Brand writes that resurrecting species could shift the “conservation story … from negative to positive, from constant whining and guilt‐tripping to high fives and new excitement.” So, why do many people in conservation oppose the de‐extinction narrative? This essay is an inquiry into whether there are intrinsic social reactions to these types of conservation solutions that might offset their potential benefits. If genetic tools are to be applied to address conservation issues in a realistic and responsible way, their broader social‐cultural implications deserve far more attention than they have so far received.

show abstract

Extinction, de-extinction and conservation: a dangerous mix of ideas

Cited by 9 publications

References 14 publications

De-Extinction

De-Extinction

A dangerous idea in action: the hegemony of endangered species legislation and how it hinders biodiversity conservation

Reclaiming Hope in Extinction Storytelling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About