What The Jurassic Park!? On the Ethics of De-Extinction

by Juan-Pablo Pina

WolfmanSF, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Imagine a species lost to time, only remembered in late-night documentaries with bad CGI and textbooks with detailed scribbles. And suddenly, there was a chance that this same animal, supposedly gone forever, could be brought back and given the chance to see the sunlight again. It sounds like something out of science fiction, but it’s very real. But it also raises a few questions.

How are we bringing these extinct animals back? Why are we bringing them back? How should we bring them back? What problems or opportunities would arise? And should we even bring them back in the first place?

1. THE “HOW”

To start with, how is this even possible? How are we supposed to bring back animals like the woolly mammoth, Thylacine (more commonly known as the “Tasmanian Tiger”) and dodo bird? We start by sequencing (or “reading”) the genome of an extinct species using preserved DNA from samples found in museums and even in the wild. Then, we compare it to the genome of a closely related living species (for example: for mammoths, this relative would be the Asian elephant). 

Using gene editing tools, we then edit key parts in the living species’ DNA to match traits of the extinct one (in the case of the mammoth this would be like adding thick fur or cold resistance or extra long tusks). These modified cells are then used to create embryos that are then implanted into a surrogate mother or developed in an artificial womb. Over time, this could produce animals with many of the traits of the extinct species.

In short, rather than actually “bring back” extinct species, we’re modifying living animals to be so close to their ancient counterparts that they’re similar in appearance and also play the same roles in an environment. But who’s doing this? Is it some secret company run by a natural history museum, is it the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), is it InGen?

Nope. 

Instead, the entire de-extinction operation is being led by Colossal Biosciences (or, more commonly, just “Colossal”). Co-founded in 2021 by eco-entrepreneur Ben Lamm and Harvard professor and geneticist George Church, the company has stated that its main focus is the research and preservation of life on Earth. This includes having dinosaur paleontologists like Kenneth Lacovara on the advisory board alongside top zoologists like Forrest Galante while also aiding conservation agencies like Elephant Havens (a group dedicated to the protection of orphaned African elephant calves) and even having famous personalities onboard like former NFL player Tom Brady. What’s more, Colossal is very open about its operations online.

Not only have staff members given dozens of talks worldwide, but there are multiple videos on Instagram and YouTube both on their accounts and on those of other internet personalities like science communicator/zoologist Lindsay Nikole and the aforementioned Forrest Galante. Not only that, but they have also been very open to various news outlets like Net Hero Podcast, Newsweek, The Daily Show, The New York Times and USA Today, so no secret locations full of science labs or ancient herds of beasts (that we know of).

But what are the benefits of doing this? Why should we be bringing back extinct animals? Well, it’s complicated.

2. THE BRIGHT SIDE

For one, this will help restore ecosystems. To help explain, we’ll go off Colossal’s current list of target animals to bring back: the thylacine (aka the “Tasmanian Tiger”), the dodo bird and the woolly mammoth.

When the thylacine was wiped out almost a hundred years ago, Tasmania lost its one true land predator, leaving the ecosystem out of whack because not only were prey species now overpopulating and eating way too much plantlife (which means both less food and more chance for wildfires), but diseases born from carcasses also became a major threat to all animal life on the island. If we bring the thylacine back to its native lands, the populations of prey animals would be reduced which would allow for the regrowth of many heavily vegetated ecosystems. Not only that but when the thylacines scavenge the dead bodies, the risk of diseases is reduced.

But what about the dodo? Well, the dodo may be the poster child for extinctions caused by man, but its revival would be an immense help for multiple reasons. But its biggest benefit would be that the same methods used to reintroduce and bring back the dodo could be used on other birds like its close living relative, the pink pigeon, which has been hanging on yet still on the decline ever since the same settlers that wiped out the dodo arrived.

However, easily the biggest benefit of these species is seen in the woolly mammoth. The same technology and methods used on this gargantuan icon of the past could be applied to modern elephants in efforts to save them from EEHV (Elephant Endotheliotropic Herpesviruses) as well as major population losses caused by human killings and habitat loss. What’s more, the same modifications used in making mammoths can help modern ecosystems become more resilient in the fight to survive against an increasingly hostile climate. This has already been tested and seen in the affectionately named “woolly mouse”, a mouse that was genetically modified to have all the physical traits seen in woolly mammoths like longer fur, smaller ears and a special metabolism. Not only that but reintroducing the woolly mammoth into its Canadian and Siberian homelands would bring back the mammoth steppe, a vast grassland that was not only able to support millions of large animals but also acted as a great storage unit for carbon. If it can be brought back, then we’d be able to stop the rapid warming of the planet and also protect vast amounts of permafrost, ice reservoirs that store millions of tons of carbon.

As for other solutions that aren’t species-specific, AI and new technologies are being developed that, according to Colossal scientists, can do 10 million years' worth of PHD-level work in a single second. Not only that, but the mere fact that de-extinction is even possible would act as an immense species-wide morale boost for humanity akin to the moon landings, proving that this is not the end of the story and that humanity can still forge a better future for our species and life on Earth. But it can’t all be good, can it? What are the downsides of it?

3. THE DARK SIDE

Of course, it can’t all be good. 

There’s the obvious danger of this power falling into the wrong hands, and being used to create deadly weapons by accident or purpose. And I don’t mean something like a monster, but instead creating a virus that’s essentially a biological nuclear bomb. We’ve already seen what something like the coronavirus can do, so the possibility of a “Bio-Nuke” could put the entire human species at risk.

Another major issue is the “Jurassic Park Effect”. When people hear about de-extinction, they usually think of a short old man dressed in white looking over a haven populated by animals thought to be lost to time. But, in the words of a famous chaotician with a deplorable excess of personality:

“‘Oo, ah’, that’s how it always starts. But then there’s running and screaming.”

-Ian Malcolm, The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

Aside from the Jurassic Park movies practically brainwashing the general public with their portrayal of de-extinction, they do raise a sound concern of scientists being too concerned with if they could to stop and think if they even should. That, along with the fact that these are animals who humans for hundreds or even thousands of years, means that their behavior and needs can become increasingly difficult to manage or present a real danger to people.

Then there’s the worry of doing far more harm than good. This can come through having to put the resurrected creatures through various tests, possibly giving them poor environmental conditions like small enclosures or wrong food, and even pumping out mangled and mutated prototype after prototype before finally arriving at a satisfactory result. Something like this already happened in 2003, when scientists used gene editing to clone the extinct Pyrenean ibex, enabling a Spanish ibex to give birth to a replicated calf. However, the infant suffered from severe defects, requiring intensive care before it eventually died shortly after birth due to a lung defect.

In April 2025, the biotechnology company Colossal (the same one I mentioned before) made headlines with a bold claim: the return of "The First Dire Wolves in 10,000 Years." The announcement referred to the birth of three genetically edited gray wolves designed using insights from the extinct species Aenocyon dirus, the animal that we call the "dire wolf", which roamed North America until the end of the last Ice Age. However, shortly after the announcement, conservationists and science communicators raised questions about the accuracy of the terminology used. Critics pointed out that the animals presented were not true dire wolves, but rather gray wolves with targeted genetic edits informed by the studied genome of A. dirus. Given that dire wolves and modern gray wolves diverged from a common ancestor approximately five million years ago—and that A. dirus may be more closely related to jackals than to modern wolves—many experts argued that referring to the edited animals as “dire wolves” was misleading.

The response from Colossal has also drawn scrutiny. Critics like paleontologist and animator Dane Pavitt have expressed concern over what they perceive as a lack of engagement with the scientific community. This, some argue, raises questions about the company’s openness to scientific discourse—especially for an organization positioning itself at the forefront of genetics and conservation.

Another point of contention is how Colossal chose to unveil the project. Rather than initially publishing their findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or at a scientific conference where the animals and the data could be examined, the company opted to debut the project in a high-profile TIME magazine article. As of this writing, no publications detailing the research have been released, though Colossal has stated that a formal publication is forthcoming. The delay has raised concerns about the transparency of the project and the opportunity for peer review, a foundational component of scientific progress. While the effort to revive traits from extinct species is undoubtedly ambitious, the debate surrounding Colossal’s dire wolf project underscores the importance of clear communication, scientific rigor, and accountability—particularly when such work captures public attention on a global scale and can easily be used as clickbait or be twisted into misinformation.

But what does this all mean? And what’s the final verdict on the morals of de-extinction?

4. CONCLUSION

So, what do we do now? On the one hand, de-extinction allows for a biological revival unlike any the planet has ever seen, aiding both living and extinct species. However, it could also put dozens of lives at risk and maybe even lead to catastrophic results. Does the good outweigh the bad, or does the bad outweigh the good?

Well, cultural advancement of any kind, ranging from art to science, has always carried some risk, so the fact that this brings its own set of dangers shouldn’t be a surprise. Then again, this isn’t a risk of a rise of heretical teachings or redefining the way we see space, this puts actual human and animal lives on the line.

Whether or not you choose to see this as a good or bad thing, or even pay attention at all, is up to you. Maybe you think the benefits and advancements are worth taking the risks, or maybe you think the dangers are far greater than the possible good outcomes. 

In the end, it comes down to you…