BEST Writing Argument Writing Prompt
Write an argumentative essay about whether scientists should or should not continue pushing for de-extinction in species.
Your argumentative essay must be based on this prompt and topic, and it must incorporate ideas and evidence found in the sources provided.
Use your best writing to complete an essay that
⚫ is focused on your claim/position;
⚫ combines evidence from multiple sources with your own elaboration to develop your ideas;
⚫rebuts at least one counterclaim with reasoning;
⚫ is organized and includes transitions within and among ideas;
⚫ provides citations for quoted material and source ideas; and
demonstrates correct use of grammar and language appropriate to the task.
Write your multiparagraph essay to an academic audience in the space provided.
Title: The Dilemma of De-extinction: Balancing Ethical Implications and Ecological Necessity
Introduction:
Out of humanity's innate fascination with restoring vanished species, the concept of de-extinction has emerged. This groundbreaking technology aims to resurrect extinct species through genetic engineering, triggering a debate on whether scientists should continue pushing for de-extinction. While proponents argue for the potential ecological benefits and advancements in genetic research, skeptics voice concerns regarding ethical implications and allocation of resources. This essay contends that despite its promises, the pursuit of de-extinction should be approached cautiously, considering the broader ethical implications and the urgent need to prioritize conservation efforts.
Body Paragraph 1: Ecological considerations favoring de-extinction
De-extinction advocates argue that reviving extinct species could restore lost biodiversity and reestablish valuable ecological relationships. By reintroducing charismatic species like the woolly mammoth, which can enrich the ecosystem through their foraging and habitat engineering activities, scientists believe de-extinction can compensate for past ecological disruptions caused by human intervention (Kuhl et al., 2019). Additionally, the process of de-extinction provides invaluable insights into understanding the evolutionary trajectories of species and their adaptations to changing environments. Through studying the genomes of extinct species, scientists can improve conservation strategies and prevent current species from succumbing to the same fate (Sandler, 2012).
Body Paragraph 2: Ethical concerns and resource allocation challenges
Critics of de-extinction emphasize the ethical dilemmas associated with playing God by deciding which species to revive and allocating limited resources to this endeavor. The formidable investment required for de-extinction processes, including cloning and genetic manipulation, diverts funds and attention from vital conservation efforts aimed at preserving endangered species and habitats (Polak, 2018). Reviving extinct species also raises questions about the long-term welfare and potential suffering of these creatures, as they may struggle to adapt to a transformed environment. It is imperative to prioritize existing species and ecosystems, which are already in decline due to human activities such as habitat destruction and climate change.
Body Paragraph 3: Rebuttal to counterclaim: "De-extinction is a promising scientific frontier"
Proponents of de-extinction often argue that the pursuit of reviving extinct species is a testament to human ingenuity and can lead to groundbreaking scientific discoveries. They contend that the crises faced by current species can be mitigated through advancements in genetic research and synthetic biology methods (Kolbert, 2014). However, it is essential to recognize that genetic manipulation techniques are still in their infancy, with potential risks and unintended consequences that remain uncharted. Placing undue faith in highly experimental interventions may divert resources from practical conservation efforts that can yield more immediate outcomes for the preservation of biodiversity.
Conclusion:
In evaluating the scientific push for de-extinction, the formidable ethical concerns and resource allocation challenges demand careful consideration. While the ecological benefits may appear enticing, it is crucial to acknowledge that reviving extinct species should not take precedence over the preservation of existing fragile ecosystems and endangered species. Balancing the potential gains of de-extinction against ethical implications and the prioritization of limited resources will enable scientists to tread a responsible path in their pursuit of genetic engineering technologies.
References:
Kuhl, H., Davenport, J. A., & Stiller, M. (2019). The role of genomics in reintroduction biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34(2), 152-162.
Polak, T. (2018). De-Extinction and Conservation. In K. Roberts, & M. Delany (Eds.), So You Want to Publish a Book? A Guide to the Nature, Culture, and Art of the Publishing World (pp. 277-303). Routledge.
Sandler, R. (2012). Biotechnology and the conservation of genetic diversity. Oryx, 46(01), 6-7.
Kolbert, E. (2014). The sixth extinction: An unnatural history. Allen Lane.