Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

De-extinction needs consultation

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 1, Article number: 0198 (2017) Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — De-extinction stands to divert funding away from existing conservation projects. Understandably, the resurrection of extinct species and associated gene-editing approaches face some opposition from conservation practitioners. Bennett et al.1 make some excellent points regarding the potential for de-extinction projects to divert funding from conservation of extant Australasian species. We contend that a further issue for conservation-motivated de-extinction is that many conservation practitioners are opposed to it and partially opposed to the gene editing techniques it relies on. It is widely acknowledged that a gap exists between genetics research and conservation practice2, which could widen with increased use of genomics3. It is therefore vital to understand practitioner attitudes to conservation-driven de-extinction and gene editing.

The former may suggest a lack of awareness of the extent of research interest and progress in de-extinction techniques (for example, ref. 7). There is confusion generally regarding what de-extinction means; many people do not appreciate that de-extinction actually involves creating a technically feasible proxy (that is, a mammoth-like elephant) rather than an impossible resurrection (that is, an actual mammoth)8. Communication from researchers is key to helping practitioners understand the reality of the de-extinction landscape. As Bennett et al. indicate1, the main concern among practitioners opposed to de-extinction was the diversion of funds from extant species conservation. Those in favour of de-extinction liked the idea of completely restoring an ecosystem, raising questions around what goals we should set for ecosystem restoration in our rapidly changing environment9, and whether extant or extinct ecological replacements would be best to restore ecosystem function.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Responses from 148 conservation practitioners working at New Zealand's Department of Conservation to four questions regarding attitudes towards de-extinction and gene editing for conservation.

References

  1. Bennett, J. R. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0053 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pierson, J. C. et al. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 433–440 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shafer, A. B. A. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 78–87 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Worthy, T. H. & Holdaway, R. N. The Lost World of the Moa: Prehistoric Life of New Zealand (Indiana Univ. Press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Predator Free 2050. Department of Conservation New Zealand http://go.nature.com/2rUnGcc (2016).

  6. Grueber, C. E. et al. Conserv. Genet. 16, 595–611 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sarchet, P. Can we grow woolly mammoths in the lab? George Church hopes so. New Scientist (16 February 2017).

  8. Shapiro, B. Genome Biol . 16, 228 (2015).

  9. Hobbs, R. J. Restor. Ecol. 15, 354–357 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Piaggio, A. J. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 97–107 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohen, S. NanoEthics 8, 165–178 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Seddon, P. J. Funct. Ecol. 31, 992–995 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Redford, K. H., Adams, W., Carlson, R., Mace, G. M. & Ceccarelli, B. Oryx 48, 330–336 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (DEMOS, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  15. A Call for Conservation with a Conscience: No Place for Gene Drives in Conservation (SynBio Watch, 2016).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy, University of Otago, Great King Street, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand

    Helen R. Taylor & Nicolas Dussex

  2. Department of Bioinformatics and Genetics, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, Stockholm, 10405, Sweden

    Nicolas Dussex

  3. Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Great King Street, Dunedin, 9016, New Zealand

    Yolanda van Heezik

Authors
  1. Helen R. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolas Dussex
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yolanda van Heezik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Helen R. Taylor or Nicolas Dussex.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables, Supplementary Figures, Supplementary Results, Supplementary Methods and Supplementary References (PDF 631 kb)

Supplementary Data 1

Full results of the survey. (XLSX 15 kb)

Supplementary Data 2

Freeform answers and categorization of the survey. (XLSX 144 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taylor, H., Dussex, N. & van Heezik, Y. De-extinction needs consultation. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 0198 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0198

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0198

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing