Integrated Academic Writing with Ethics: De-extinction Synthesis Essay

This synthesis essay, written for an Integrated Academic Writing with Ethics course, critically examines the ethical and environmental implications of de-extinction. The author analyzes arguments from various sources, including articles by Ronald Sandler, Carrie Friese, and Carl Zimmer, as well as a TEDx talk by Hank Greely. The essay explores the environmental changes since the extinction of species, animal rights concerns, and potential health risks associated with reviving extinct animals. The author employs a utilitarian ethical framework to argue against de-extinction, emphasizing the importance of focusing on current environmental issues and endangered species. While acknowledging proponents' arguments regarding human responsibility and potential benefits, the essay ultimately concludes that the risks and potential negative consequences outweigh the benefits, advocating for a focus on present-day conservation efforts and learning from past mistakes. The essay highlights key factors like environmental changes, animal welfare, potential disease spread, and the overall impact on existing ecosystems. The author also discusses the economic aspects of de-extinction and the potential for misdirecting resources from more pressing environmental concerns.

Natalia Ampatzidou
Dr. Alleksandra Sakellari
WP1111 Integrated Academic Writing with Ethics
Synthesis Essay
Second draft
17 June 2018
Words 1452
Is de-extinction a vital solution or an egoistic movement? Remaking the
world as we would like, will probably have some consequences. To bring back
species that have been extinct for a long time is not an easy deal and also is not
something that is familiar to us. All of these taking issues are examined in the
articles “The ethics of reviving long exiting species” by Ronald Sandler which is
published on May 9, 2013 in Conservation Biology, in “making De-extinction
Mundane?” by Carrie Friese and Claire Marris published in March 25, 2014 in
PLOS Biology, in a speech by Hank Greely in TeDxDeExtionction and “Bringing
Them Back to Life” by Carl Zimmer published in April 2013 on National
Geographic magazine. The main idea of these sources is the argumentation of
de-extinction which some of them are in favor and some of them against. In
ethical way there are some obstacles that we have to make clear. “Ethics” is the
study of what are good and bad ends to pursue in life and what it is right and
wrong to do in the conduct of life. It is therefore, above all, a practical discipline.
It’s primary aim is to determine how one ought to live and what actions one ought
to do in the conduct of one’s life. One theory of the ethics is utilitarianism which

Ampatzidou 2
I’m going to support my thoughts. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states
that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. Although a number of
scientists regards de-extinction as a promising technology, I do not believe we
should pursue it, because even if we bring them back it will take a principal fund
away from protecting endangered species and this will proceed to the destruction
of the world. One of the main facts is that the environment has change since the
day that those species extinct. Also, there are animal rights which trample every
year. Finally, the main worry is that if we bring them back it will be safe for our
health or it will curry a disease.
In first place the environment change day by day and the main factors are
pollution, greenhouse effect and overpopulation. Afterword’s to bring back
species in a different environment that they used to live is probably a science
fiction scenario. The environment that they used to live has changed and does
not exist anymore. If we are reviving them from the death doesn’t mean that they
are not go to extinct again. According to Ronald Sandler “However, deep de-
extinction is not itself a significant species conservation strategy because it does
not prevent species from going extinct. Nor does it address the cause of
extinction, for example, habitat destruction, climate change, pollution and
extraction”. Thus, the reviving of species will not bring back the environment as it
was, and the species cannot make it in a different environment. Furthermore,
from an ethical perspective the idea of de-extinction in a completely different

Ampatzidou 3
environment will might destroying the balance of existing species. And think
about it how immoral will be if a minority of anthropogenetic species tearing down
most of the natural species. The environment is a main factor which has changed
a lot so this situation prove us that de-extinction is physically unstable.
Secondly as people have their rights so do animals have their own. Animal
welfare is the well-being of animals. To revive species will take time and probably
a lot of animals will have to be sacrificed for something that we do not know how
is going to be and if it going to live. So a big matter according to de-extinction is
that it will motivate animals suffering. We do not not have any right to mistreat
animals. In other words, Carrie Friese and Claire Marris give an example about
cloning “One example comes from cloning, where resulting animals often die in a
painful manner and shortly after birth due to birth defects associated with somatic
cell-nuclear transfer”. Imagine how many animals have suffered all off these
years. In a research the number of animals that have used for an experiment is
10-27 million per year. According to utilitarianism a big concern is if we bring
them back where and whom animals will live. If will live in a zoo it will be unfair to
keep them “imprisoned” and not let them free in the nature. But in the other hand
if we let them free it will probably be disturbing the majority of the existing
species. To sum up, we must respect the animals that already existing and treat
them with consideration. If we bring back species, they are going to suffer more
and probably they are going to die quickly.

Ampatzidou 4
To put in another way, if we revive species and realize them, apart from the
ecological problems may cause a threat to human health. It is possibly that there
will be involuntary negative ecological and human health circumstances based to
deep de-extinction. We have to worry a little bit about it whether the animals that
are being brought back will have a negative impact not only to humans but also
the health of other animals. Hank Greely at TeDxDeExtinction with respect to
conservation said “maybe the passenger pigeon would turn out to be a wonderful
vector for some nasty disease. We don’t know, we can’t exclude that possibility”
it is believed that sometimes disease is spread not because the pathogen
suddenly appears but because a great vector for it suddenly appear. Considering
all the above and based on utilitarianism if reviving species spread a disease it
will probably be a big threat to human life. Just a few reviving species which are
set free in nature will cause a health problem to us and to animals so once again
imagine that just only the minority of anthropogenetic species can cause problem
to majority of these world. On the whole of de-extinction, for the common good
we have to thing more for our potential health risks to us and to other creatures.
Although, I am against the de-extinction there are some proponents of this
view argue that reviving species it is a human responsibility as we are te one who
let them extinct. Carl Zimmer in National Geographic magazine supports that
“some extinct animals also performed vital services in their ecosystems, which
might benefit from their return”. That is to say , if we bring them back we are

Ampatzidou 5
going to clean the environment and probably we will restore the planet as it was.
Moreover, some of them they found the idea of conservation an amaizing trip to
the past. They truly believed that it would be spectacular to see in zoo a
mammoth, dodo bird, thylacine or even a giant dinosaur. Also some revived
species may have a significant cultural value for what they are or for how they
relate to cultural history. Ronald Sandler said “ when revived species are valued
by people in these and other ways and so desired by them, then those de-
extinctions have value for that reason”. Sum up all the above to reestablish lost
value has benefits to human life. Money is a basic factor as a lot of people are
going to spent a lot of money for resources to see or to own individuals of revived
species. So we can say that conservation is the basis for economic value.
For me the concept of de-extinction is now as dead as a thylacine. It is
amazing to see how far science has reached and how far it can go. But the idea
of bringing back species isn’t a wise thought. In other words, give out the wrong
message to people: We can destroy anything we want and then we will have the
requirement from the scientist to fix it. It is my belief that we must accept the
responsibility for what we have made to the earth and not to have the conviction
that in the future scientist will fix it for us all our mistakes. As in utilitarianism we
have to think goods or services that benefits the largest number of people in the
largest possible way. We must concern problems that are in hurry like
environmental issues. What happens to this extinct animals isn’t fair but this

Ampatzidou 6
happen to the past and the past is far from now. We have to think more for future
problems as is the greenhouse effect or the species that are in danger and they
are go to extinct. We have to learn from our mistakes.

Works Cited
Sandler Ronald “The ethics of reviving long extinct species” Conservation
Biology May 9, 2013
Friese Carri, Marris Claire “Making de-extinction mundane?” PLOS Biology
March 2014
Greely Hank “De-extinction: Hubris or Hope?” TEDxDeExtinction
Zimmer Carl “Bringing Them Back to Life” National Geographic April 2013