The De-extinction Dilemma

Is this Process Really Worth It?

- 

Ben Lamm’s Colossal Biosciences aims to revive extinct species like the mammoth, dodo, and thylacine through genetic engineering, sparking global debate on the science and ethics of de-extinction. While advocates see it as a way to restore lost biodiversity and combat climate change, critics warn of commercialization, ethical risks, and limited ecological relevance. The revived animals, often “proxy species,” are not true replicas but gene-edited versions of living relatives. The article by C R Ramana Kailash argues that de-extinction, though scientifically remarkable, risks diverting attention and resources from conserving existing species and ecosystems—the only real path to sustaining biodiversity. The author feels that while the science behind de- extinction offers hope, our priority should always be ensuring that we protect the ecosystems and species we have now rather than betting on the ability to bring back those that are already gone.

Ben Lamm, co-founder and CEO of Colossal Biosciences, has set an ambitious—and controversial— goal: to create a mammoth-like calf by 2028. But this resurrection isn't the company's only goal. Projects to revive the Dodo and Tasmanian tiger are already in various stages of development. While the throughline of this entire proposition feels fantastic, development in genetics is quickly making de-extinction a reality. We've already seen glimpses of this future. In 2003, scientists briefly revived the Pyrenean Ibex through cloning before it promptly died. Yet even that short-lived success hinted at a possibility where science might reverse extinction. Could we soon see woolly mammoths roaming the Siberian tundra? Could the ecosystems we've lost be restored? Or is this just a stunt that doesn’t solve the problem?

Is De-extinction Necessary?