Playing God or saving nature? The ethics of ‘de-extinction’

The recent unveiling of genetically modified wolf pups by Colossal Biosciences has reignited debate about the ethics of "de-extinction" — the controversial practice of using genetic technology to recreate extinct species.

Proponents argue that de-extinction represents a powerful new conservation tool. "If we are successful in de-extinction, we're building technologies that can help human health care and conservation," says Colossal CEO Ben Lamm.

The company has already applied similar techniques to clone endangered red wolves, potentially benefiting a species with fewer than 20 wild individuals remaining.

Critics, however, question both the scientific legitimacy and moral implications. "If we don't have extinction, how are we going to learn from our mistakes?" challenges Dr Nic Rawlence from Otago University. 

"Is the message now that we can go and destroy the environment and that animals can go extinct, but we can bring them back?"

The welfare of these novel creatures raises significant concerns. Animal rights advocates point out that cloning involves keeping surrogate mothers in captivity and subjecting them to invasive procedures.

The resulting animals face uncertain health outcomes and typically live in restricted environments — Colossal's wolves occupy a 2,000-acre reserve, far smaller than a predecessor of the newborns, or even a wild wolf's natural range.

Ethicists also question who benefits most from de-extinction: the animals, ecosystems, or companies with commercial interests. With projects focused on charismatic species like dire wolves and woolly mammoths rather than ecologically critical but less glamorous creatures, some see these efforts as driven more by spectacle than science.