Should Scientists Continue Trying to Revive Extinct Species?
Embedded Files
Keep up to date on what is happening in Furness!!
Tristan Barker
March 24, 2026
Should Scientists Continue Trying to Revive Extinct Species?
Tristan Barker, February 21, 2026
You may remember, in April of 2025, scientists at Colossal Biosciences created the “world’s first de-extinct animal.” These scientists developed three dire wolf puppies through a process of intense gene splicing, combining ancient grey wolf DNA, and genetic cloning. The dire wolf was a species formerly native to North America that went extinct around 13,000 years ago. In spite of Colossal’s claims, these newly developed pups are not actually the same species—and in reality, are considered genetically modified gray wolves that contain similar traits to that of the dire wolf—which makes them close relatives, rather than the same. Since then, the bioscience center has turned its focus toward the revival of other extinct species like the woolly mammoth, tasmanian tiger, and the dodo bird, but this raises the question: is it truly reasonable to continue our efforts toward the de-extinction of more species?
The process of de-extinction is extremely cost-filled and time-consuming. TechCrunch explains that Colossal’s dire wolf project, although not explicitly disclosed by the company, is estimated to be valued at over 10 billion dollars. Does a $10 billion budget really justify this cause of “de-extinction,” especially considering that these dire wolf pups aren’t even genetically the same species?
Furthermore, we should consider what purpose these “de-extinct” species actually serve. During the Ice Age, dire wolves functioned as an apex predator that would hunt in packs, helping to manage large herbivore populations such as mammoths, mastodons, and ground sloths. Considering the modern era, and the fact that all of these animals the dire wolf hunted and kept in check are extinct—that makes its primary function obsolete. It would be a waste of money to continue funding a project that will have no viable return on our behalf. The only genuine contribution this “de-extinction” seems to serve is purely for the purpose of entertainment. We should not even consider Colossal's wolf pups as dire wolves, because they aren’t the same species. We may create new dog breeds through selective breeding and genetic manipulation—but a greyhound can never fully become a shih-tzu, can it? The same logic applies to these wolves. Colossal may call this “de-extinction,” but we will never truly have the dire wolf back through this highly-expensive process.
The debate of de-extinction also holds many ethical concerns regarding the wellbeing of these animals. The world is dramatically different compared to the time when these species once roamed, and the changing environment is what ended up causing most of these extinctions. Arctic Focus explains, “Most scientists agree that the dire wolf specialised in hunting large herbivores, many of which … became extinct or drastically declined in North America around 13,000 years ago. The disappearance of their prey almost certainly drove the dire wolf extinct.” This is important because species like the dire wolf were decimated due to the lack of megafauna. If we were to bring back the dire wolf—or any other extinct species—how would we support them in the long run? If we were to ever try to reintroduce these species back into the ecosystem, what would prevent them from dying off again? Now, if the de-extinct animals were to actually survive in their reintroduced environments, they have the potential to invasively destabilize their new environments and cause the extinction of currently living species. For example the Burmese python—native to Asia—was introduced into the Southern Florida Everglades, and has since become an invasive apex predator that is killing off large populations of the Everglades’ native species. USGS states that a “2012 study found that populations of raccoons had declined 99.3 percent, opossums 98.9 percent, and bobcats 87.5 percent since 1997. Marsh rabbits, cottontail rabbits, and foxes effectively disappeared over that time.” Looking at the devastation the invasive burmese python has caused in the Everglades, imagine what could happen around the world if we allowed de-extinct species to be reintroduced. Currently living herbivores like the white-tail deer would have to compete with giant woolly mammoths for plants; the dire wolf would decimate various kinds of forest fauna; and the de-extinct invasive populations would gradually continue to grow from their lack of competition.
Some have argued that these de-extinct species wouldn’t have to be reintroduced into the wild, and can just be kept captive in facilities—this is, however, highly unethical. Why should we create species just for them to spend their entire lives in confinement? Bornfreeusa states that “even the ‘best’ zoo setting can never recreate the complex environment that most species encounter in the wild, or simulate all the stimuli which keep the animals active and alert.” This is important because even if we were to create these species again, Earth is just not currently in the right environment to support them. We may believe that we are helping by bringing back these creatures from extinction, but in reality we are either destroying our own contemporary species, or subjecting these de-extinct species to a life where they will never fully thrive. Alternatively, we should push away from the cause of de-extinction, and instead focus on species that are currently living, nearly extinct, or extremely vulnerable to extinction.
Many species throughout the world are on the brink of extinction. Animals like the northern white rhino, amur leopard, and vaquita are extremely vulnerable, and if something is not done soon enough, they have the potential to not make it another year. FWS.gov notes that “species loss on a global scale continues to increase due to the environmental effects of human activities.” Our society's pollution, hunting, and continued use of raw materials has already caused a detrimental effect to our ecosystem—which is why we must now take action. Rather than focusing on the past and de-extinction, we need to turn our attention to the future of these species that are still living. While it may be “cool” to see the woolly mammoth walk the earth again, it would be far more impactful if the future generations have a chance to see a tiger while they still exist. Instead of funding research into de-extinction, we should fund research into our current-era repopulation.
While we don’t currently have a fully de-extinct species, this cause may one day truly come into fruition. Before that day, we must remember that if we want to truly bring back a species, we must first weigh in the factors of how well sustained our current-living ecosystems remain. To protect our current environment, de-extinction must stay in the periphery of our focus, as we instead turn toward prioritization of expending our efforts, time, and resources toward the innovation of our living-world. How will we ever manage to maintain the past, if we cannot efficiently manage the present?
Page updated
Report abuse