“The Mammoth Cometh” by Nathaniel Rich in the New York Times is an article that details the prospect of “de-extinction” and how scientists within the community have been forming arguments about how to best begin understanding what new technologies are capable of. “De-extinction” is the term given to the process by which scientists can bring back extinct animals, such as the wolly mammoth or the great auk, through genetic engineering. In order to ground the analysis of “de-extinction”, the author focuses particularly on the life of Ben Novak, a scientist, who from a young age, showed an incredible passion for bringing back the passenger pigeon.
The passenger pigeon, a once abundant species, was hunted for their meat as well as for sport and sold for their oil and feathers. These practices contributed to the eventual decline from five billion passenger pigeon to complete extinction in a few decades. The last passenger pigeon died in 1914 at the Cincinnati Zoo. The author goes into detail about how obsessed Novak is with “resurrecting” the passenger pigeon and cites a researcher who rejected Novak for a job position at a genetic engineering lab due to his fixation. The scientist, who ran the lab where he applied to work, Beth Shapiro, stated, “I appreciated his devotion to the bird, but I worried that his zeal might interfere with his ability to do serious science.” Shapiro called into question Novak’s interestedness and how it could potentially affect the objectiveness of his future research within the field.
Two key scientists in “de-extinction”, Stewart Brand and George Church, hosted a symposium at Harvard Medical School called “Bringing Back the Passenger Pigeon” in February 2012. At this symposium, Church demonstrated his...
... middle of paper ...
... could potentially be given a new meaning and context if it is proved to be reversible.
Finally, this article touches upon inappropriate versus appropriate pathos in scientific argument. Novak is considered too invested in bringing back the passenger pigeon, while his most other scientists involved in the field do not feel the same level of attachment. Interestedness is often considered bias, but in regards to “de-extinction”, a field that is so closely related to ethics and morals, is it dangerous to be biased on behalf of bring back animals mankind contributed to destroying? One contrasting argument that none of the scientists in this article touched upon is the desire to completely change the scientific community’s direction concerning the issue of extinction to focus its energy and resources onto preventing the extinction of species struggling to survive today.
“By the time we’re done, it’s quite possible that there will be among the great apes not a single representative left, except, that is, for us,” Kolbert deduces (225). Hunting a species has caused the endangerment and extinction of many species of animals and plants. Six out of eight species of the world’s bears are categorized as “vulnerable” or “endangered” to extinct (222). Advocating for rights of endangered species, and protecting the forests they habitat is a noteworthy method to prevent extinction caused by humans. As an individual, one could help by supporting and donating to organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and more (262). Humans may ease their conscience by not actively killing endangered species, but protecting them
Humans have driven many animals extinct, but should we bring them back is the question. Geneticists, biologists, conservationists and ethicists gathered to discuss the controversies. Some people say in doing this we are playing God, while others say we did by killing them. Other scientist say that it may be beneficial because it will add biodiversity, and medicinal properties back to the ecosystem. It is only possible to bring species back from around 10 thousand years ago. Recently scientists have vastly improved the cloning process. We can now coax adult animal cells into any type of cell, including eggs and sperm, then manipulating them into full-fledged embryos, which has led to the ideas and developments of reviving many other species including mammoths, frogs and
“Even if animal testing produced the cure for Aids, we’d be against it” This rhetoric notion was stated by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and summarizes the fanatical doctrine animal rights activists preach to their followings. These activists preach a doctrine of hate calling for the end of all meat eating, wearing of fur, use of animals in experiments regardless if they are beneficial or not, and even push for the end of all pets as we know of it. Howard Lyman author of “Mad Cowboy” has not only aligns himself with this rambunctious group of man haters, but supports their nazi like doctrine in his book. On further review of mad cowboy one must dig deep to find any useful knowledge, and when you do find it, one sees that the knowledge has been twisted to fit Lyman’s own agenda. Long dead are the days when knowledge was first gathered then conclusions derived, now statistics and data is twisted and molded to grant validity to ones own agenda.
Man is responsible for the extinction of the North American megafauna (Donlan 2005, Rubenstein et al. 2006). Since our ancestors are responsible for the extinction, it’s our duty to fix what our ancestors have destroyed (Donlan 2005). Moreover, according to Donlan (2005) most megafauna species in Africa and Asia are endangered or under threat. Hence, relocating them to North American is a best way of conserving them because the country carries “Global conservation implications” and contrary to that Africa and Asia practice poor conservation strategies (Donlan 2005). He further argues that N...
Mark Twain is one of the best-known writers of all time, writing things that are most commonly known for being humorous and relaxed. In “The Lowest Animal”, Twain discusses his final outcome after completing a series of experiments he undertook at the London Zoological Gardens. His end result is Charles Darwin’s theory that man evolved from earlier ancestors, but flipped completely upside down. This theory is widely known, but Twain argues a different one. In this essay, he uses affective reasoning and facts from his experiments to back up his claim, all while using Aristotle’s appeals and logical fallacies.
Zak, Steven. “Ethics and Animals.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2007
8. Taylor, Dan. 1998. Audubon Society Inspired to Action by Bird Die -offs . 17 Jan. 1998 . E-mail . Available bkus@sunstroke.sdsu.edu
Anyone with even a moderate background in science has heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Since the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, Darwin’s ideas have been debated by everyone from scientists to theologians to ordinary lay-people. Today, though there is still severe opposition, evolution is regarded as fact by most of the scientific community and Darwin’s book remains one of the most influential ever written.
Years ago, species such as the Pyrenean Ibex, Passenger Pigeon, and the Wooly Mammoth used to roam the very same earth that we humans walk today. These species, along with many others have gone extinct over the course of time and now only fossils remain. However, Scientists are using biotechnology in an attempt to bring these species back from the dead. This process is known as de-extinction. De-Extinction, also known as resurrection biology, is the scientific process of resurrecting species that have died out, or gone extinct (Britannica). Scientists are using three different techniques in their attempt to resurrect these species which includes breeding back, genetic engineering, cloning.
However, in many cases, the facts of the research are overlooked (“About”). Although many people believe that animal research is morally wrong, animals should continue to be used for scientific research because it is, as of now, the most effective way to conduct scientific research other than using human bodies to develop drugs or perform many different so...
Dr. Dave Hone (2014) proudly honors the title of being in the pro-zoo camp. Hone was a volunteer for a number of years at two different zoos and is able to identify zoos as being more than just a collection of animals (Hone, 2014, para. 2) He firsthand witnessed the importance of how conservation assists with preventing species from going extinct, the role education plays to inform many children and adults along with the guidance research shares to help better understand wildlife (Hone, 2014). In order to ensure that wild animals receive maximum care it is crucial to gain beneficial knowledge from research. In addition to understanding animal breeding through research, zoo officials are able to learn how to prevent and cure a variety of animal diseases. Education is another positive resource that zoos have to offer. There is always the option to learn about wild animals through animal documentaries, however many people enjoy a prominent up-close personal
In the essay “Bringing Them Back to Life” by Carl Zimmer, he writes about scientists that found a way to bring extinct animals back to life. In 2003, French and Spanish scientists revived a wild goat called a bucardo. They did this by implanting the bucardo DNA into goat eggs that were emptied of their own DNA. The implantation was unsuccessful because none of the bucardos survived. Recently, with all the new technological advances, scientists have been able to increase the effectiveness of the cloning. Although the process has been made easier, there are still multiple problems that arise with de-extinction. The author argues against de-extinction because once the species are brought back to life they run a high risk of becoming extinct again.
Several mass extinctions have occurred during the Earth’s history. The Cretaceous – Tertiary Boundary (K-T) Extinction caused the loss of at least three-quarters of all species known at that time including the dinosaurs. The cause of this mass extinction is a controversial subject among scientists but the fossil evidence of it’s occurrence is abundant.
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science:Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP: Oxford UP, 1993.
According to the philosopher Peter Singer, speciesists treat human interests as more fundamental than other nonhuman animals interests; therefore, speciesists ignore the interests of other species where no great benefit to human interests is concerned (Singer 279). For instance, the BUAV claims that experiments like sewing kittens’ eyelids together to study amblyopia have been done many years ago, and yet no cure has been found (Hanlon 1). As a result, Singer argues nonhuman animals are regarded as only “an item of laboratory equipment” (281). Many of the experiments on animals are carried out for rather trivial interests such that speciesists give the weight of nonhuman animals less weight than the interests of human beings. Singer asserts that human beings need to apply the principle of equal consideration of interests to animals to give equal weight on them (Singer 277). Singer’s theory of equal consideration of interests is extremely useful because it sheds insight on vivisection since the fundamental issue in how human may treat animals is whether they suffer and such that pains of animals and humans deserve equal considerations (Singer 278). Whether it’s poultry farming or vivisection, sentient animals have interests of not experiencing pain or suffering (Singer 278). According to Hanlon, animal recruits lead better lives and better deaths in laboratory than in poultry