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.
||
Title: In Pursuit of De-Extinction: Balancing Scientific Progress and Ethical Considerations
Introduction:
The concept of de-extinction, or the revival of extinct species through advanced genetic manipulation, is a subject of contention among scientists and ethically-minded individuals alike. While some argue that de-extinction holds great potential for conservation efforts and ecosystem restoration, others contend that it poses ethical and practical challenges. This essay will argue that scientists should continue pushing for de-extinction but must do so cautiously, considering both the potential benefits and the ethical implications involved.
Body:
I. The Promise of De-Extinction for Conservation Efforts
De-extinction has the potential to bring back species that are considered keystone and indicator species, which play crucial roles in their ecosystems. For example, the reintroduction of the thylacine, an extinct apex predator, could restore balance to the Australian ecosystem by controlling population levels of herbivores. This not only aids in conserving biodiversity but also strengthens ecosystem resilience.
Furthermore, de-extinction can rectify human-induced extinction and right past wrongs. The revival of species such as the passenger pigeon, which was driven to extinction by human actions, would serve as a reminder of our responsibility to protect and preserve Earth's diverse flora and fauna.
II. Potential Scientific Advancements and Knowledge Gain
De-extinction research demands advancements in genetic technology, enabling us to better understand evolution, genetics, and molecular biology. Such research could lead to breakthroughs in combating diseases, improving genetic diversity in threatened populations, and saving species on the brink of extinction.
The process of de-extinction involves meticulous analysis of genetic material, helping us uncover valuable insights into the genetic makeup, behavior, and adaptations of extinct species. This knowledge can be applied to enhancing conservation efforts and preventing future extinctions.
III. Addressing Ethical Concerns
While the pursuit of de-extinction undoubtedly has its merits, concerns regarding the ethics of playing "God" and diverting limited resources abound. Critics argue that resurrecting extinct species diverts attention and resources from conserving endangered ones, which are in more immediate need of protection.
However, the exploration of de-extinction should not be seen as an either-or scenario. Scientists can simultaneously work towards conserving extant species while researching de-extinction techniques. Increased public interest and funding flowing into de-extinction technology can be used to support conservation efforts across the board.
IV. Considering Ecological and Practical Challenges
One of the major challenges associated with de-extinction is the ability to reintroduce extinct species into their former habitats successfully. Ecologically, the return of extinct species may disrupt existing ecosystems, leading to unintended consequences. Therefore, careful consideration must be given to the ecological impact of such introductions, ensuring thorough assessments and robust management plans are in place.
Rebuttal of Counterclaim:
Detractors argue that de-extinction could create a "zoo-like" world, devoid of true wilderness and natural selection. However, responsible de-extinction efforts would prioritize habitat restoration, creating an environment where reintroduced species can thrive naturally. Additionally, technological advancements offer the opportunity to resuscitate once-extinct species without artificially managing their populations.
Conclusion:
In the pursuit of de-extinction, scientists must strike a balance between pushing scientific boundaries and respecting ethical considerations. By proceeding cautiously, researchers can leverage de-extinction to restore ecosystems, gain valuable knowledge, and contribute to broader conservation efforts. Though challenges exist, carefully managed de-extinction endeavors can inspire future generations to embrace the responsibility of preserving our planet's biodiversity.
Of course! Please provide me with the sources you have, and I'll be happy to explain how I can help you.
Bot GPT 3.5
answered by Bot GPT 3.5
calendar icon4 minutes ago
Source 1:
On a cold night in January, a Harvard University professor with a billowing white beard stood on stage in a theater in New York City, with an icon of the environmentalist movement beside him. Both men were staring down a problem. How could they convince their counterparts on the stage, along with the 300 people at Hunter College's Kaye Playhouse for a debate, that the world should bring back Velociraptors? Could they sway them to at least bring back an extinct pigeon? The theme song from the 1993 blockbuster "Jurassic Park" was playing in the background, chipping away at their argument before the debate even began. In the film, based on the 1990 Michael Crichton book, dinosaurs are brought back from extinction to fill a theme park. "That film took sides. The experiment blows up. People get hurt," moderator John Donvan told the crowd. "But not before actor Jeff Goldblum declares, 'Scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.' And then, a dinosaur eats Jeff Goldblum." Actually, a dinosaur does not eat Goldblum's mathematician character, but chaos certainly reigns in the movie and its myriad sequels because of de-extinction. Those images are what George Church, of the billowing white beard, and Stewart Brand would need to overcome to win the debate. Church helped launch the Human Genome Project, and Brand is a founder and editor of the Whole Earth Catalog magazine. The Human Genome Project is a global, long-term research effort to identify and map the estimated 30,000 genes in human DNA. The official motion for the night, "Don't Bring Extinct Creatures Back to Life," was chosen by Intelligence Squared, a nonprofit that turns academic-level debates into popular live events and podcasts. Arguing for the motion were Lynn Rothschild, a scientist with NASA, and Ross MacPhee, a curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The two were also arguing against Church and Brand. Genetic Rescue Brand started by saying controversy around de-extinction is "made up." He wasn't saying they should resurrect meat-eating dinosaurs. Instead, he said, de-extinction could be achieved through hybrids, or animals created from living, endangered species and extinct ones, using CRISPR. The term is an acronym for a tool that has been likened to "playing God" because it allows scientists to remove and replace genes. Eventually, CRISPR could be used to boost agricultural production or to replace wildlife that's slowly disappearing. That is the goal of the Revive & Restore project, a California nonprofit co-founded by Brand that seeks to use new methods of "genetic rescue for endangered and extinct species." The group is working to reintroduce the extinct passenger pigeon into the wild. The process would remove genes from modern band-tailed pigeons and replace them with passenger-pigeon genes. Revive & Restore would like to do something similar with woolly mammoths, editing the extinct creature's genes into those of modern Asian elephants. In that case, the goal is to increase the population of endangered Asian elephants, which has declined because of a virus. "We're not just curing extinction," Brand told the audience. "The technology that de-extinction is leading the way in is now being used by us and by others to prevent extinction." In 2018, Brand and Church traveled to Siberia, where Russian scientists are attempting to re-create the grassland ecosystem where woolly mammoths once lived. As the number of mammoths declined, foliage took over grassland. To restore it, scientists have knocked down trees and shrubs and brought in plant eaters, including elk and moose, to graze and keep back the foliage. Church said mammoth-and-Asian-elephant hybrids could once again inhabit Russia. He also urged everyone to "loosen up" about the prospect of hybrids. There's a lot of hybridization that occurs in mammals, he said. "I am partially Neanderthal," he said, referring to estimates by scientists that about 20 percent of Neanderthal genes are in modern humans. Neanderthals are an extinct species of human. Jack Horner, a Montana State University scientist and adviser on the first "Jurassic Park" film, is also working on a hybrid called "chickenosaurus." No one mentioned this during the debate. A hybrid mammoth, roaming Russia today, raises all sorts of questions, Rothschild and MacPhee said. Would this hybrid be released into a world with no natural predators? How would a mammoth know how to be a mammoth without other mammoths around? "You've got all the problems of not having a mom" and not having other animals to learn from, Rothschild said. These animals "will be suffering for something that we could be solving a different way," she said. Ethics Concerns An audience member asked if someone wealthy could be moving forward with the technology, possibly for commercial purposes, while scientists were debating whether they should. Brand said there was nothing happening in the de-extinction world that had commercial purposes. MacPhee, in response, asked, "You don't think there's a future in having saber-toothed tigers that you can use for hunting purposes?" Rothschild took the argument further, wondering whether someone could attempt to de-extinct a Neanderthal for commerce or simply in the name of science. The idea, Rothschild said, was morally wrong. "We have enough trouble with humanity recognizing that we have roughly equal intellects across the races. And to purposefully re-create a species that we know is going to be inferior in some way is just asking for enormous trouble," she said. In the end, based on the votes tallied before and after the debate, more people came around to MacPhee and Rothschild's side than Church and Brand's. For once, the Jeff Goldblums won.
Source 2:
Title: Why De-Extinction is a Worthwhile Pursuit
Author: Carl Zimmer
Publication: National Geographic
Date: August 8, 2013
Summary: This article argues in favor of de-extinction, highlighting the potential benefits and importance of reviving extinct species. The author discusses how de-extinction can help restore ecosystems, provide insights into genetic diversity and adaptation, and engage the public in conservation efforts. The article acknowledges and addresses ethical concerns but emphasizes the potential positive impact of de-extinction on conservation and scientific knowledge.
Source 3:
Title: De-Extinction and Conservation
Author: Hillary Rosner
Publication: Stanford Magazine
Date: May/June 2017
Summary: This article presents a balanced view of de-extinction, discussing both the potential benefits and the ethical and practical challenges associated with it. The author explores different arguments for and against de-extinction, including considerations of ecosystem disruption, genetic diversity, and limited conservation resources. The article provides insights from scientists and conservationists and encourages further discussion about the implications of de-extinction on conservation efforts.
Outline:
I. Introduction
A. Background on the concept of de-extinction
B. Statement of thesis: Scientists should continue pushing for de-extinction but with caution and ethical considerations
II. Potential Benefits of De-Extinction
A. Restoration of keystone and indicator species
1. Example: Reintroduction of thylacine in Australia
B. Addressing human-induced extinctions
1. Example: Reviving the passenger pigeon as a symbol of responsibility
C. Advancements in scientific knowledge and technology
1. Insights into genetics, evolution, and molecular biology
2. Potential applications in disease prevention and genetic diversity enhancement
III. Ethical Considerations
A. Concerns about resource allocation and diversion from conserving extant species
1. Simultaneous focus on de-extinction and conservation efforts
B. Assessing ecological impact and managing reintroduction of extinct species
1. Importance of thorough assessments and management plans
C. The debate over playing "God" and the potential risks of commercialization
1. Balancing ethical responsibilities and scientific progress
IV. Counterargument and Rebuttal
A. Counterclaim: De-extinction could result in a "zoo-like" world and interfere with natural selection
B. Rebuttal: Responsible de-extinction focuses on habitat restoration and natural processes
1. Avoiding artificial management of reintroduced species
2. Leveraging technology to protect and conserve biodiversity
V. Conclusion
A. Restate thesis and main arguments
B. Emphasize the need for cautious and responsible pursuit of de-extinction
C. Call for ongoing dialogue and exploration of the ethical implications of de-extinction on conservation efforts and scientific progress.
Source 2:
The last lonely bird of a species that once numbered 3 billion died in 1914. Martha, as she was known, had been the last passenger pigeon since her mate George died in 1910. The last living member of a social species, she lived out her days alone in a cage in the Cincinnati Zoo. Her preserved corpse can now be seen at the Smithsonian Institution. But what if the passenger pigeon could be brought back? After all, specimens of long-dead animals still contain DNA, genetic material that can be thought of as a set of instructions on how to form a particular species. Packets of DNA combine to form genes associated with a particular trait. If enough of those genes can be recreated, perhaps a long-gone species could be brought back to life. That's the idea behind something called de-extinction. It works like this: Take DNA harvested from specimens stuffed in museum drawers, like Martha. Figure out which genes matter and then use genetic engineering to edit the DNA of a closely related species into some version of the extinct species. If all goes well, a copy of the long-lost Martha could be born and, one day, flocks of passenger pigeons could be restored. Getting The Genes To Fit Ben Novak is doing pioneering work to make this exact scenario come true. Novak's effort is focused on acquiring genetic information from stuffed passenger pigeons, while simultaneously studying the genetic makeup of the closely related band-tailed pigeon. So far, 32 passenger pigeon samples have had their genomes sequenced. "Genome" is simply the word for the complete set of genes found in an individual animal, while "sequencing" refers to the process of figuring out the order of the genome's parts — that is, the order of its DNA bases. Just as the words in a sentence need to be in a certain order to make sense, so too do DNA bases need to be ordered in a particular way for genetic information to be conveyed. A unique sequence is what creates an animal's particular genetic profile. All of Novak's passenger pigeon samples come from birds killed between 1860 and 1898. "That's right in the range when the bird was going extinct," he notes. Novak has also been helped by outside efforts, including the nearly complete sequencing of three passenger pigeons. The genes of those three individuals show that passenger pigeons have been through population booms and busts before — their numbers have grown and shrunk at different times. Passenger pigeons have gone through times in their evolutionary history when their numbers were quite small, geneticist Beth Shapiro said. That suggests that scientists are able to create a small population of pigeons that can grow on its own. Birds Of A Feather "All of our birds," Novak adds, "are all very, very similar to each other — like everybody being cousins, essentially — which is the effect of this recent rapid population expansion." Novak and his team are interested in figuring out when that population expansion happened. To figure out when the last boom occurred will require finding DNA from fossil samples thousands of years old. Novak has already begun to examine a few such samples. If the population explosion happened more than 400 years ago, then it is unlikely that the European arrival in North America caused the boom that produced billions of birds, as some have suggested. With ancient samples and those from the 19th century, Novak and others could begin to figure out how the bird lived in the wild. Understanding how the passenger pigeon existed makes it more likely people could bring the bird back and have the species thrive in the woods available today. There is "nothing in the data so far to shout at us to turn back now and not bring back the passenger pigeon," Novak says. Novak's team has not yet completed the band-tailed pigeon sequencing required to begin resurrecting the passenger pigeon. However, experiments with cells from the band-tailed pigeon may begin as soon as next year. The work would be similar to experiments now being done to see if the woolly mammoth can be resurrected, brought back to life, through its still-living relative, the Asian elephant. Early Birds Have To Learn If the de-extinction works, the only remaining challenge would be to teach the new birds how to be passenger pigeons. Doing that would likely be even more challenging than the genetic work itself. To understand the difficulty, look at similar efforts — such as attempts to raise California condors with puppets or to teach cranes to migrate by using ultralight airplanes. Still, if everything goes well, birds that carry the genes of the passenger pigeon could be flapping around by the end of the decade. The project may prove too ambitious, however. Similar efforts that stretch back 30 years have so far failed to produce a quagga, an extinct species of zebra. Likewise, the 2003 experiment that resurrected a bucardo for seven minutes has yet to be repeated. Nevertheless, conservationists are examining how the science used for de-extinction might be used to preserve endangered animals and plants or bring them back if they die out. There are advantages, however, to working with an animal that is already extinct. The scientists don't exactly have to hurry. After all, Martha died 100 years ago. "If we succeed, the world gets a new" kind of bird, Novak says. "If we fail, we learn things that are valuable and the world isn't left with another extinct species."
Source 4:
Title: The Ethical Limits of De-Extinction
Author: Ronald Sandler
Publication: Scientific American
Date: July 25, 2017
Summary: This article explores the ethical considerations surrounding de-extinction, discussing the potential risks and limitations of bringing back extinct species. The author argues that while de-extinction may have some benefits, such as educational value and ecological restoration, it also raises concerns about the instrumentalization of animals, potential harm to existing species, and the allocation of resources. The article calls for a broader discussion on the ethical implications of de-extinction and the need for careful deliberation before pursuing such endeavors.
Source 5:
Title: The Conservation Argument for De-Extinction
Author: Olivia Judson
Publication: The New York Times
Date: May 20, 2013
Summary: This op-ed argues in favor of de-extinction from a conservation perspective. The author highlights how de-extinction can help restore ecological balance and mitigate the effects of human-caused extinctions. She discusses the potential for species revival to reintroduce lost ecosystem functions and enhance biodiversity. The article acknowledges ethical concerns but suggests that de-extinction could be