SoylentNews

takyon [soylentnews.org] writes:

Following recent talk of resurrecting [soylentnews.org] the woolly mammoth, a new analysis has poured cold water on the idea of de-extinction efforts [sciencemag.org], recommending that funding go to conservation efforts instead:

Ten days ago, science news media outlets around the world reported that a Harvard University–led team was on the verge of resurrecting the wooly mammoth. Although many articles oversold the findings, the concept of de-extinction—bringing extinct animals back to life [sciencemag.org] through genetic engineering—is beginning to move from the realm of science fiction to reality. Now, a new analysis of the economics suggests that our limited conservation funding would be better spent elsewhere.

"The conversation thus far has been focused on whether or not we can do this. Now, we are progressing toward the: 'Holy crap, we can—so should we?' phase," says Douglas McCauley, an ecologist at University of California, Santa Barbara, who was not involved in the study. "It is like we've just about put the last stiches in [Frankenstein's monster], and there is this moment of pause as we consider whether it is actually a good idea to flip the switch and electrify the thing to life."

[...] the results also show that if instead of focusing the money on de-extinction, one allocated it into existing conservation programs for living species, we would see a much bigger increase in biodiversity—roughly two to eight times more species saved. In other words, the money would be better spent elsewhere to prevent existing species from going extinct in the first place [nature.com] [DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0053] [DX [doi.org]], the team reports today in Nature Ecology and Evolution.

[article abstract not yet available]

Original Submission