Running head: THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 1

A Call for Conversation Regarding the Uses and Dangers of De-Extinction

Michael D. Juliano

Legal Studies Academy

First Colonial High School

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 2

Abstract

The report analyzes the foundations, applications, and moral concerns of the discipline of

de-extinction in order to promote intelligent and necessary conversations. This sphere has seen

both success and failure with regards to the species that have been reinstated into the animal

kingdom. Much of this technology is still developing, and current resources limit what these

scientists, accused of playing the role of God, can accomplish. A legal standpoint will be equally

inspected to ascertain which laws apply, do not apply, and possibly apply to de-extinct creations.
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 3

A Call for Conversation Regarding the Uses and Dangers of De-Extinction

As the end of the 20th century neared, many spectacular feats were accomplished in the

field of biological science. The first sheep was cloned, and today the name “Dolly” is

immediately recognized by biologists around the world. CRISPR was conceived, and now the

possibilities for this gene editing technique are endless. Not to mention the first human surrogate

mother successfully gave birth just over 30 years ago (Johnson, 1987). What was once thought

impossible is now possible, and de-extinction is no exception. De-extinction science draws from

the knowledge offered by this boom of organic science to bring dead species back to life. Like

these other subfields of biological science, de-extinction is rapidly improving and nobody can

truly know the full extent as to what will come from this wildly interesting (and slightly nerve-

racking) field. The question people need to start asking is, “Is the world ready for a new age

where the lines between the past and present are blurred and the very definition of ‘extinct’ is

called into question?”

Methodology of De-Extinction

Back Breeding

Back breeding is when different variations of a species or closely similar species and/or

subspecies are selectively bred for certain traits that can be seen in extinct animals. In certain

areas, back breeding has already been kicked into full gear and viable results have been yielded.

Aurochs. In Europe, different breeds of cattle are crossbred to more closely resemble the

muscular auroch, an animal that went extinct in the 1600s. With each passing year, these

European facilities breed cattle that look more and more like their distant auroch cousins

(National Post, 2018).

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 4

Direwolves. In the States, back breeding is being used with dogs to recreate the direwolf.

Huskies and other wolf-like dogs are being selectively bred to produce offspring with large

bodies and thick furry coats. While these carefully conceived canines look like direwolves, they

do not act like them since the predatorial qualities of the extinct beast have not been back bred

into these dogs (National American Alsatian Breeders Association, 2011-2018).

Quaggas. Quaggas are a subspecies of the stereotypical black and white African zebra

that went extinct in the late 1800s due to overhunting. They are highly similar to zebras, with the

most noticeable difference being the tanned and half-striped bodies in place of black and white

stripes. The Quagga Project has successfully produced multiple quaggas (or quagga-like zebras)

by selectively breeding zebras for the traits that were seen in quaggas. Based out of South Africa,

this project was founded in 1987 and it is still breeding strong today. In August 2018, the most

recent edition to their quagga herd, Rachel, was born, and the foal is in excellent health (The

Quagga Project, 1987-2018).

CRISPR and Gene Editing

CRISPR, or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (Vidyasagar, 2018),

has many applications, but de-extinction researchers analyze how this genome editing procedure

can be used to take the genetic makeup from a living species and alter it in order to more closely

resemble that of an extinct species. Genome editing (also known as genetic engineering) is when

the genes of an animal are artificially changed to code for different traits. This could be applied

with numerous animals, such as a typical pigeon being genetically edited to portray the colors of

a passenger pigeon (Wenz, 2018) or an Asian elephant coded to show a brown fur pelt (Wray,

2017). This gene editing technology is expanding at a rapid rate, and what it can accomplish is

mind-blowing. Just recently, a professor based in Hong Kong claimed to have rid twin babies of
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 5

the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) by using CRISPR; however, it is worth noting that

the Chinese professor, He Jiankui, has mysteriously vanished since his controversial

announcement (Grossman, 2018).

Cloning and DNA Insertion

Out of all the proposed methods to resurrect extinct species, cloning would yield the most

precise and genetically similar results. Unlike back-breeding and gene editing, cloning does not

alter the genetic materials of currently living animals; rather, it takes the preserved genetic

material of extinct animals and directly uses it to de-extinct that said animal.

Woolly mammoths. While many of these extinct cloning candidates have been dead for

thousands of years, the organic materials of these animals (such as blood cells and tissue

samples) have been preserved. This is most clearly seen with animals that went extinct in

extremely cold environments, such as the woolly mammoth and the woolly rhinoceros (The

Telegraph, 2009). Viable tissue samples of these animals have been found preserved in Russia’s

Siberian ice, and the DNA of these animals has been found mostly intact. Some of these

unearthed behemoths even bleed when they are removed from their frozen resting place, and

many of these extinct woolly mammoths have even been found with their fur, limbs, and organs

all (for the most part) in the anatomically correct location. This can be seen with Lyuba, a baby

mammoth that died over 40,000 years ago. Lyuba’s carcass has been so well preserved that it

appears to be a sleeping animal instead of a mummified fossil (The Telegraph, 2009). In order

for the method of cloning animals back into existence to work, a surrogate mother would be

needed. A surrogate mother would need to be similar and distantly related to that extinct animal.

In theory, preserved mammoth sperm would be inserted into the egg of an Asian elephant outside

of the fallopian tube (via in vitro fertilization or IVF) and the elephant would give birth to a
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 6

hybrid species. After this process has been repeated, the byproduct of this IVF would be less and

less of a hybrid and more closely resemble the desired extinct animal; however, it will never

100% be the same as the extinct animal.

Tasmanian tiger. The Tasmanian tiger (also referred to as a thylacine) went extinct in

the 1930s due to human activities that completely decimated the species. Unlike the name, the

Tasmanian tiger is a marsupial (pouch-bearing mammal) akin to the Australian kangaroo;

however, unlike the kangaroo, it was a predatory animal that acted in ways similar to wild dogs

and wolves. Mostly preserved DNA has been analyzed from infant Tasmanian tigers and this has

allowed an astonishingly accurate genome of the animal to be sequenced; the correct order of the

nucleotide DNA bases has been figured out for this marsupial’s genome (Pickrell, 2017). In the

future scientists hope to perfect this sequenced DNA and insert it into the egg of the Tasmanian

devil, a closely related species (ABC NEWS, 2018).

Rhinoceroses. The potential to clone the northern white rhino is being considered after

the last male died in captivity this year. The DNA of this rhino species is safely secured in

facilities throughout the world, and the southern white rhino is the perfect candidate to be a

surrogate mother since all of the surviving female northern white rhinos are past breeding age.

Technically the northern white rhino is not extinct; rather, the correct terminology to describe the

animal’s predicament would be “near threatened” (IUCN, 2018). A similar cloning procedure

could be used with the West African black rhino that went extinct back in 2013 (Knight, 2013).

For this subspecies of the black rhino, preserved DNA could hypothetically be inserted into the

East African black rhino to help save yet another species of extinct rhino. In Asia, many

subspecies of the Javan rhino have similarly been pushed to extinction and the remaining

subspecies of this animal that are still in existence have less than 100 members (Main, 2013).
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 7

Assuming there is preserved genetic material from these rhinos, the same biological technology

that can be applied to their African counterparts can be applied to them as well.

Past De-Extinction and Developing De-Extinction

The Bucardo

The bucardo was a goat-like animal that went extinct in the mountainous regions between

France and Spain in the year 2000. The DNA was extracted from a deceased bucardo and

scientists successfully created multiple clone cells. These clones were later inserted into various

surrogate goat mothers of similar goat species. The bodies of most of the goats would not

originally accept the clones and miscarriages were common for the few that did. One surrogate

mother successfully became pregnant and gave birth to a bucardo; unfortunately, the animal she

gave birth to had serious respiratory issues and died after only a few minutes (Zimmer, 2013).

The health issues that this cloned bucardo had are akin to other health issues that are possible

with cloned animals in general. Inserting a foreign baby into a surrogate mother (especially one

that is not of the same species) takes things outside of the natural order and forces the body to

cope with something it is not necessarily meant to cope with. While cloning animals in general

has improved tremendously and has been mostly perfected since the practice first started, slight

errors can affect the development of the baby animal either inside the womb or later in its life (S.

Roberts, personal communication, October 22, 2018).

Rheobatrachus silus

Australian scientists working for the Lazarus Project have inserted the clones of this

extinct gastric brooding (eggs incubated in female’s stomach) frog into a surrogate mother of

living frog species. While the embryos of the Rheobatrachus silus died after only partly

developing, the mere fact that an embryo was even formed is extraordinary (Quick, 2013). These
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 8

results are promising for other potential de-extinction projects that aim to utilize cloning methods

to bring other de-extinction candidates back into this world.

Common De-Extinction Misconceptions

Dinosaurs can definitely not be brought back to life since their DNA is simply too far

gone. DNA breaks down after an animal dies and scientists estimate, on average, that half of the

bonds in DNA are broken every 500 years. This is why de-extinction from a scientific

perspective deals with animals that have gone extinct in a relatively recent period of time.

Dinosaur DNA is completely gone since these giant bird-like reptiles went extinct 66 million

years ago. Another myth is that substances such as amber can preserve DNA for a long enough

period of time to make a resurrection of the dinosaurs possible. While amber does significantly

slow down the destruction of a deceased animal’s DNA, the destruction will still occur and will

not be available 66 million years later. For the foreseeable future the closest the world will get to

the Jurassic Park franchise is the projected completion of an animatronic dinosaur theme park

(Carboni, 2013). If anything, people will see something closer to the cast of animals seen in

Twentieth Century Fox’s Ice Age come back into the world first.

Opponent Arguments

Animal Cruelty

De-extinction runs the risk for resurrected animals to experience unforeseen problems,

such as organ failure. Genetic problems could occur as well, a very real possibility should

scientists use the DNA of extinct animals from a dysfunctional gene pool. Using the wrong DNA

templates such as that of the incest-breeding mammoths from eastern Siberia’s Wrangel Island

(Wade, 2017) would be incredibly detrimental. As Beth Shapiro (2017), accredited biologist and

author of How to Clone a Mammoth, put it, "I wouldn't recommend using a Wrangel Island
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 9

mammoth as a template." Also the surrogate mother may reject her offspring when she sees how

different it is from her (S. Roberts, personal communication, October 22, 2018). Some of these

animals may never be able to enter their natural environments since other species now occupy

them, or these environments have been severely altered. Not to mention, valuable animal parts

such as horns, tusks, and pelts are sold illegally for substantial amounts of money on the black

market. Would biologists be able to guarantee the safety from poachers of these rare and

expensive de-extinct animals if they were to be re-introduced into their natural environments?

Viral Resurgences

A retrovirus is a virus that has genetic material composed of ribonucleic acid (RNA).

Animals today have developed a resistance to many of these long-dead retroviruses, and that

explains why some viruses have not been around for thousands and thousands of years. Should

extinct animals that have not developed a resistance to these retroviruses be reintroduced into

their natural environments, a catastrophic and deadly retroviral force could be released upon the

Earth (S. Roberts, personal communication, October 22, 2018). However, the true risk of a

retroviral resurgence is debated by many scientists, and many are far more concerned with the

“moral hazards” of de-extinction (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 2014).

Invasive Species

The reintroduction of de-extinct species could harm current species living in

environments. There is almost always a change in the ecosystem when a new species is

introduced; more often than not it is for the worst (S. Roberts, personal communication, October

22, 2018). Entire food chains would be thrown out of balanced if a de-extinct species is

reintroduced into an ecosystem that is neither natural nor compatible for them. One way to

combat this fear would be to build controlled environments known as bio domes. These
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 10

environment-mimicking domes would enable scientists to observe if a formerly extinct species

could interact with the vegetation and animal life of the desired environment without causing any

major and irreversible destruction (Koebler, 2013).

Protecting Endangered Species

With thousands of animals going extinct today, is the costly process of de-extinction (one

estimate has resurrecting the woolly mammoth at 10 million dollars) really where the money

should be going (Wade, 2008)? Many environmental scientists will agree that the Earth is

heading towards a sixth mass extinction (Carrington, 2017). Unlike past mass extinctions, this

one will be caused by human activities. For an aversion to take place, serious financial backing

would need to be put into both protecting endangered species and the habitats with which they

reside in. Proponents of de-extinction will argue that bringing extinct species back from the dead

could help shine the light on the severity of allowing an entire species to die out. Additionally,

portions of the money that is gained from de-extinction projects could be donated to conservation

organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

Public Opinion

Much of the public would likely not line up in support of de-extinction and the methods

used to attain it. Today, procedures such as cross breeding different species, selectively breeding

animals within a species, cloning, and CRISPR are considered to be unethical to many

Americans and the world in general. A 2017 survey showed that Americans who found the

cloning of animals to be inherently wrong outnumbered those who found it acceptable by an

approximate ratio of 2:1 (Masci, 2017).

Proponent Arguments

Satisfy Missing Environmental Needs

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 11

When these animals were in their prime, they used to play a role in their respective

environments. Typically this role involved keeping the population of another species in check.

When one species is allowed to reproduce without anything killing it or keeping its population at

a steady level, that one species can single-handedly destroy the biodiversity in an environment.

One argument made by auroch-revival junkies is that these massive cows could help keep

Europe’s sprawling grass populations in check as they successfully did four centuries ago

(National Post, 2018).

Scientific Research

Scientists would be able to better understand how these animals of the past behaved. For

some of these extinct animals, it is not known how they went extinct. If we were able to study

them real time we could get a better idea of how they potentially went extinct. Additionally

important, numerous theories could have more facts put behind them. People would be able to

gain knowledge about how the evolutionary process worked and how the common ancestors of

both living and extinct animals behaved (Biology Wise Staff, 2018). For instance, Asian

elephants and woolly mammoths both descended from the primelephas, an animal whose genus

translates into “first elephant.” Should scientists be able to de-extinct the woolly mammoths,

they will obtain a more informed idea of how the primelephas behaved. Similarities between the

genetic structure of animals that are comparable in both appearance and behavior, yet highly

contrastable in terms of their biological family, could be studied. This would come into effect

with a sequenced genome of the Tasmanian tiger, since evolutionary scientists still do not

understand precisely why an animal that bears its young in a pouch would develop the same

canine qualities seen in wolves (Pickrell, 2017). CRISPR technology could also be expanded by
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 12

applying it to de-extinction and an expansion of gene editing knowledge could lead to human

medical benefits.

Sanctuaries

Sanctuaries would help people appreciate and observe animals just like zoological parks

do today. Additionally, sanctuaries could direct some of their profits towards programs that help

to protect endangered species. Strict guidelines would need to be set; however, independent

agencies must be allowed to enter these sanctuaries at random times to ensure that animal

keepers are not attempting to hide the pain or deformities that any of these animals may have. On

the other hand, there could be sanctuaries that are not open to the public at all. Such a sanctuary,

known as Pleistocene Park, already exists in Siberia for animals such as reindeer and bison. The

current protector of this park, Nikita Zimov, intends to turn this park into a modern Ice Age by

introducing hundreds of woolly mammoths into the park to help cut back on sprawling

vegetation growth (Andersen, 2017).

Human Culprits

Many of these extinct animals that are up for de-extinction consideration went extinct due

to human activities. Animals such as the passenger pigeon and the auroch have gone extinct as a

direct result of human hunting, exploitation, and encroachment. In fact, from 1900 to 2015, close

to 500 animals have gone extinct as a direct result of human annihilation (Ranosa, 2015). Is there

an obligation to right a wrong or should the past be left in the past?

Last Line of Defense

Tremendous swathes of animals are projected to go extinct in the near future. The

majority (two-thirds) of the animals that are endangered today are expected to be extinct by the

time humanity enters the 22nd century (Kotecki, 2018). A census of African elephants, the
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 13

largest of the land mammals, has shown the species declining at an annual rate of 8 percent

(Braun, 2017). Despite laws restricting the sale of ivory, protection from over a hundred

organizations and charities, a World Elephant Day, and armed anti-poaching militias across

Africa, including a female fighting force in Zimbabwe (Barbee, 2017), the descendants of the

mastodons are still on the path towards extinction. Animal charities, wildlife funds, and

organizations that bring awareness to endangered species provide much-needed relief to the

animals that fall under their umbrella of protection; however, there is only so much they can do

to protect them from a human-dominated world that constantly makes the survival less and less

feasible. The best option to save a species would certainly not be utilizing de-extinction

technology, but in any problematic situation it is always wise to have a last resort.

Current Laws

Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 directs all environmental agencies such as the the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

in their appropriate jurisdictions to prevent the sale, habitat modification, and general killing of

endangered species (United States Government, 2017). The Endangered Species Preservation

Act of 1966 requires animals in imminent threat of extinction to be listed as ‘endangered.’

Species brought back from extinction would not immediately qualify as self-sustainable,

prompting the question of whether or not de-extinct species would be considered endangered.

Another hypothetical point of debate would be if extinct animals that previously held the status

of being ‘endangered’ under the the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (species that

went extinct after the year 1966) would still retain this crucial description should scientists find

some way to revitalize those species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018). This question has
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 14

not been publicly addressed; although, it was a major argument in this past summer’s billion-

dollar blockbuster, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Despite being highly contentious, this

question was answered when a pro-dinosaur group wanted the United States Congress to allocate

funds to protect isolated dinosaurs from mortal danger. A majority of congressmen and

congresswomen in the film voted to not take action to save the dinosaurs, arguing that these de-

extinct giants are not protected under the Endangered Species Act; rather falling under the

protection of the private company that created them.

Genetically Modified and Selectively Bred Organisms

In Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company, the The Supreme Court unanimously

ruled in favor of the biotechnology corporation and, in doing so, decided that the genetically

modified seeds created by Monsanto were intellectual property protected by Monsanto’s patent.

As a result of this ruling, the precedent was set that companies hold the right to any genetically

modified organisms that they create and fully-enforceable patents can be obtained by these

companies (Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company, Et Al., 2013). Animals brought back

from the dead would be considered GMOs and this would provide a favorable precedent to any

scientific companies working in the field of de-extinction. Codified laws are in place as well to

prevent the over-breeding of dogs, and certain traits that would be ill-suited for an animal are

disallowed from being bred ("Standards of Care," 2013). This could be applied to de-extinction

since scientists that wish to selectively breed animals would need to follow breeding laws and

they would not be able to subvert these laws like backyard dog breeders.

Conclusion

When cloning first started, people did not forsee how prevalent it would eventually

become. This same mindset is akin to de-extinction, and discussion of this topic should be
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 15

promoted so people will be ready for an acceleration of de-extinction science in the future. De-

extinction has proven its legitimacy with varying degrees of success. With such rapid

improvements being made, questions concerning the boundaries of human ingenuity are being

asked. Like all sciences that involve animal testing, the beginning stages of de-extinction are

bound to result in issues while succeeding stages should be more precise with a higher degree of

success. While the Jurassic Park movies are thrilling, people can no longer deny that the concept

of de-extinction is purely fictitious.

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 16

References

ABC NEWS. (2018, August 22). Extinct Tasmanian tiger could be cloned. ABC news.

Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120013&page=1

Andersen, R. (2017, April). Welcome to Pleistocene Park. The Atlantic. Retrieved from

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/pleistocene-park/517779/

Barbee, J. (2017, December 16). Africa's new elite force: women gunning for poachers

and fighting for a better life. The Guardian. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/17/poaching-wildlife-africa-

conservation-women-barbee-zimbabwe-elephant-rhino

Biology Wise Staff. (2018). Pros and cons of de-extinction. Retrieved November 28,

2018, from https://biologywise.com/pros-cons-of-de-extinction

Braun, D. M. (2017, March 3). Will Africa's big five become extinct in the wild?

National Geographic. Retrieved from

https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2017/03/03/will-africas-big-five-become-extinct-in-

the-wild/

Carboni, A. (2013, April 4). Can we build a real Jurassic Park? [Video file]. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=446cFXMTqvE

Carrington, D. (2017, July 10). Earth's sixth mass extinction event underway, scientists

warn. The Guardian. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-

event-already-underway-scientists-warn

Ehrlich, P., & Ehrlich, A. H. (2014, January 13). The case against de-Extinction: It’s a

fascinating but dumb idea. Retrieved November 26, 2018, from

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 17

https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_against_de-

extinction_its_a_fascinating_but_dumb_idea

Grossman, D. (2018, December 3). The infamous CRISPR baby scientist is missing.

Retrieved December 4, 2018, from

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a25383837/crispr-baby-scientist-he-

missing/

IUCN. (2018). The IUCN red list of threatened species. Retrieved December 10, 2018,

from https://www.iucnredlist.org/

Knight, M. (2013, November 6). Western black rhino declared extinct [Press release].

Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/10/world/africa/rhino-extinct-species-

report/index.html

Koebler, J. (2013, April 4). Reviving extinct animals could lead to 'invasive species from

the past'. U.S. News. Retrieved from

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/04/reviving-extinct-animals-could-lead-

to-invasive-species-from-the-past

Kotecki, P. (2018, October 15). So many animals will go extinct in the next 50 years that

it will take Earth at least 3 million years to recover, a study has found. Retrieved

December 14, 2018, from https://www.businessinsider.com/animals-going-extinct-

recovery-3-million-years-2018-10

Main, D. (2013, January 3). Javan rhino officially extinct in Vietnam. Retrieved

December 20, 2018, from https://www.livescience.com/25967-vietnam-rhino-

extinct.html
THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 18

Masci, D. (2017, February 22). 20 years after Dolly the sheep's debut, Americans remain

skeptical of cloning [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2017/02/22/20-years-after-dolly-the-sheeps-debut-americans-remain-skeptical-of-

cloning/

National American Alsatian Breeders Association. (2011-2018). Breeding back.

Retrieved November 20, 2018, from http://www.direwolfproject.com/project-

logistics/breeding-back/

National Post. (2018). Scientists edge closer to bringing back the aurochs, the fearsome

cattle breed last seen in the 1600s. The National Post. Retrieved from

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/scientists-edge-closer-to-bringing-back-the-auroch-

the-fearsome-cattle-breed-last-seen-in-the-1600s

Pickrell, J. (2017, December 11). Tasmanian tiger genome may be first step toward de-

extinction. National Geographic. Retrieved from

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/thylacine-genome-extinct-tasmanian-tiger-

cloning-science/

The Quagga Project (Ed.). (1987-2018). The quagga revival South Africa. Retrieved

December 6, 2018, from https://quaggaproject.org/

Quick, D. (2013, March 18). Scientists clone extinct frog that gives birth from its mouth.

Retrieved November 21, 2018, from https://newatlas.com/extinct-gastric-brooding-frog-

cloned/26687/

Ranosa, T. (2015, June 30). Humans: Cause of extinction of nearly 500 species since

1900. Tech Times. Retrieved from

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 19

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/64542/20150630/humans-cause-of-extinction-of-

nearly-500-species-since-1900.htm

Roberts, S. (2018, October 22). [Personal interview by the author].

Standards of care for dog and cat breeders [Review [Title of Reviewed Work], by J. L.

Kaminski]. (2013, September 6). Retrieved November 28, 2018, from Old research report

website: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0309.htm

The Telegraph. (2009, October 5). Baby woolly mammoth provides secrets of survival in

Ice Age. The Telegraph. Retrieved from

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJvIj9suPeAhV

GmeAKHeF-

DckQjhx6BAgBEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fscien

ce%2Fscience-news%2F6261226%2FBaby-woolly-mammoth-provides-secrets-of-

survival-in-Ice-

Age.html&psig=AOvVaw0a6pydIPe8Ggweaj87dwcr&ust=1542817939607954

United States Government. (2017, August 8). Summary of the Endangered Species Act.

Retrieved November 28, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-

endangered-species-act

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2018, December 11). Endangered Species Act. Retrieved

December 18, 2018, from https://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/esa-

history.html

Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company, et al., No. 11-796 (May 13, 2013).

Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-796

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION 20

Vidyasagar, A. (2018, April 20). What is CRISPR. Retrieved November 20, 2018, from

https://www.livescience.com/58790-crispr-explained.html

Wade, N. (2008, November 19). Regenerating a mammoth for $10 million. The New York

Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html

Wade, N. (2017, March 6). The mammoths last stand: How the Wrangel Island herd died

off. Anchorage daily news. Retrieved from https://www.adn.com/arctic/2017/03/06/the-

wooly-mammoths-last-stand-how-the-wrangel-island-herd-died-off/

Wenz, J. (2018, September 10). Inching Toward De-Extinction: Can CRISPR Resurrect

Passenger Pigeons? Discover. Retrieved from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-

brief/2018/09/10/de-extinction-passenger-pigeon-crispr-revive-restore/#.W_QyhGhKjrc

Wray, B. (2017, September 1). CRISPR may prove useful in de-extinction efforts.

Retrieved November 20, 2018, from https://www.the-scientist.com/reading-

frames/crispr-may-prove-useful-in-de-extinction-efforts-30992

Zimmer, C. (2013, April). Bringing them back to life. National Geographic. Retrieved

from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/04/species-revival-bringing-

back-extinct-animals/