1

Genetic Engineering, it’s Uses and Ethicality

An Conservation Perspective

AP Seminar

March 15, 2025

Word Count: 1278

 2

Introduction

Genetic Engineering is the modification of an organism's genetic material in order to

achieve desirable traits or outcomes. Through advanced techniques like cloning, genome editing,

and gene therapy, genetic engineering has been able to greatly influence many different fields

from agriculture, medicine, to environmental management (Redford et al., 2014). One of the

most interesting and controversial applications is the use of genetic engineering for the

conservation of species. Genetic engineering allows scientists to address a wide variety of

challenges including the issue of biodiversity loss by providing potential strategies and plans to

restore ecosystems and bring back previously extinct species in a process called de-extinction.

De-extinction specifically targets reviving extinct species through genetic engineering, this new

field holds promise for addressing critical ecological issues and challenges. However, it also

leads to significant ethical issues and raises concerns regarding human involvement in nature and

its ecological balance. As genetic engineering technologies continue to mature and advance,

understanding their implications and evaluating the ethical and practical impacts becomes

increasingly more important (Shapiro, 2015). Additionally, genetic engineering leads to broader

discussions around bioethics, the possibility of unintended harm caused by human intervention in

the evolutionary process, and the long term sustainability of artificially created ecosystems.

These issues show the importance in thoroughly understanding the process of genetic

engineering and the possible consequences involved so society can navigate the potential

benefits and risks responsibly.

Genetic Techniques
 3

Genetic engineering techniques such as cloning, specifically through the process of

somatic cell nuclear transfer also known as SCNT, starts with removing intact DNA from

preserved biological material of an already extinct species then inserting it into the enucleated

egg of a closely related species. This egg is then implanted into a surrogate mother, which

produces an organism that is genetically identical or nearly genetically identical to the previously

extinct species (Robert, 2017). Cloning organisms and demonstrating their viability was first

seen in 1996 when a genetically modified sheep was created called Dolly (Church, 2017).

Dolly’s successful cloning represented a huge step forward and proved that adult DNA could be

altered to generate an entire organism, laying the foundation for future cloning and de-extinction

efforts (Jones, 2015). Genome editing, particularly through CRISPR-Cas9, offers another

powerful path for de-extinction. This technique allows scientists to carefully edit the DNA of a

closely related living species and modify it to resemble the genome of the extinct species

(Shapiro, 2015). Using CRISPR-Cas9 is advantageous because of its precision, efficiency, and

relative affordability compared to previous techniques. Ongoing projects such as Revive and

Restore are currently applying these methods in hopes of reviving the woolly mammoth. By

integrating wooly mammoth genes that are responsible for traits such as cold resistance and fat

storage into the genome of an Asian elephant, scientists aim to create hybrid animals that are

adapted to the harsh arctic environments (Church, 2017). Their goal in this project is not just to

revive the species but to restore key ecological roles that were previously held by the wooly

mammoth, such as preventing forest overgrowth and maintaining grasslands that improve carbon

sequestration. Another ongoing project involving the use of CRISPR is the efforts at reviving the

passenger pigeon, by genetically modifying the band-tailed pigeon, its closest living relative

(Sandler, 2017). Reviving passenger pigeons could help restore the forest ecosystems of North
 4

America, which previously benefited from the pigeons’ vast flocks that help with seed dispersal

and forest structure (Redford et al., 2014). Techniques such as cloning and CRISPR editing offer

unlimited potential for conservation and ecological restoration but come with many scientific and

ethical implications.

Benefits and Risks

Using genetic editing to bring back extinct species offers strong potential for helping

ecosystems recover and restoring key processes that can enhance biodiversity and make

ecosystems more resilient. For example, reintroducing the revived wooly mammoth could revive

the ecosystems of the Siberian grasslands and enhance carbon sequestration, which cools the

atmosphere, in turn helping combat climate change (Robert, 2017). Maintaining grasslands

biomes rather than forests in permafrost regions can prevent the release of carbon dioxide that’s

stored in frozen soil, which offers a powerful tool against global warming (Church, 2017).

Reviving the passenger pigeon could help reestablish natural processes and aid in seed dispersal

and nutrient cycling, which would support the recovery and balance of North American forest

ecosystems. (Seddon, Moehrenschlager, & Ewen, 2014). However, bringing back extinct species

also comes with major concerns. For instance, one major concern is the disruption to existing

ecosystems, as these revived organisms might not fit into current ecosystems shaped by years or

centuries of change (Seddon et al., 2014). If the species fail to adapt, or if they dominate the

ecosystem, it could negatively impact existing species and destabilize the delicate ecological

balances that have been established (Sherkow & Greely, 2013). Another serious concern that is

often raised is the spread of diseases. Revived species could introduce ancient pathogens to

modern ecosystems or suffer from new diseases that did not exist when they were originally alive

(Sandler, 2017). This could set off unforeseen imbalances, potentially causing population crashes
 5

or sparking new ecological challenges. In addition, these revived species often begin with limited

genetic diversity, leaving them more vulnerable to disease and environmental stress. (Jorgensen,

2013). These weaknesses underscore the fact that even carefully planned reintroductions can lead

to unforeseen and potentially permanent consequences.

Ethical Considerations

Beyond the environmental risks, de-extinction also brings up some serious ethical

concerns. One of the biggest questions is how we choose to spend limited conservation

resources. Critics argue that the money and effort used to bring back extinct species might be

better spent helping endangered animals that still have a real shot at survival (Sandler, 2017).

Conservation efforts around the world already struggle with limited funding, and spreading those

resources even thinner could make it harder for existing programs to stop more species from

going extinct (Sherkow & Greely, 2013). There are also concerns regarding animal welfare.

Cloning and genome editing often involve high rates of failure, leading to the suffering of

surrogate mothers and the organisms themselves (Jørgensen, 2013). Revived species may

struggle to thrive in modern ecosystems that have been altered since their extinction, resulting in

short, painful lives or the need for continual human management (Feigin et al., 2018). This raises

questions about the morality of bringing back species without ensuring they can sustainably and

ethically exist.Finally, the long-term ecological impacts of de-extinction remain largely

unknown. Ecosystems are incredibly complex and interconnected. Introducing species from the

past could have cascading effects that permanently alter habitats and disrupt current species

dynamics (Feigin et al., 2018). Thorough environmental modeling, long-term pilot programs, and

small-scale controlled reintroductions are crucial to minimizing risks and preventing potential

ecological disasters (Redford et al., 2014).

 6

Conclusion

De-extinction through genetic engineering offers extraordinary potential for ecological

restoration, climate change mitigation, and biodiversity enhancement. However, these benefits

must be weighed against the substantial ecological, ethical, and practical risks involved. Ongoing

research and progress in genetic technology may increase the effectiveness of cloning and

genome editing, while also helping to minimize unexpected outcomes. (Church, 2017). By

cautiously advancing genetic engineering technologies with strong regulatory frameworks and

thorough risk assessments, scientists can enhance conservation strategies and potentially restore

lost ecological functions. Ultimately, the responsible pursuit of de-extinction requires prioritizing

ecosystem stability, animal welfare, and long term sustainability over scientific inquiry.

Exploring de-extinction also advances genetic research, providing tools that could help address

habitat loss, climate resilience, and declining genetic diversity in endangered species. While the

science of de-extinction creates both excitement and skepticism, its careful and ethical

exploration could make a meaningful contribution to global conservation efforts, if guided by a

strong sense of stewardship and ecological responsibility.

 7

References

Church, G. (2017). Woolly mammoth revival through genome editing. Nature.

Feigin, C. Y., Papenfuss, A. T., & Austin, C. M. (2018). Long-term ecological consequences of​

de-extinction. Science, 362(6419), 1187–1189.

Jones, D. (2015). Cloning: The legacy of Dolly the sheep. Genetics, 199(2), 319–322.

Jones, S. (2015). Cloning Dolly the sheep and implications for de-extinction. The Lancet,

386(9990),​

1425–1426.

Jørgensen, D. (2013). Reintroduction and de-extinction: Back to nature? Environmental

Humanities,​

2(1), 29–44.

Redford, K. H., Adams, W., & Mace, G. M. (2014). Synthetic biology and the conservation of​

biodiversity. Oryx, 48(3), 330–336.

Robert, A. (2017). Ecological roles of revived species. Functional Ecology, 31(5), 992–999.

Sandler, R. (2017). Ethics of reviving extinct species. Conservation Biology, 31(2), 197–203.

Seddon, P. J., Moehrenschlager, A., & Ewen, J. (2014). Reintroduction and de-extinction:​

Ecological risks and benefits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29(3), 140–147.
 8

Sherkow, J. S., & Greely, H. T. (2013). Ethical considerations in de-extinction. Science,

340(6128),​

32–33.