As biotech companies race to resurrect extinct species, policymakers face urgent questions about ecological risks, disease threats, and corporate control of nature
In a Dallas laboratory, a startup named Colossal Biosciences is splicing woolly mammoth genes into elephant cells. In Melbourne, another company edits marsupial DNA to recreate the thylacine. From Harvard to Silicon Valley, the controversial field of de-extinction is attracting massive investments, with proponents promising to “reverse environmental destruction” through genetic engineering.
But as the science advances, a growing coalition of scientists, ethicists, and policymakers warns that this technology could unleash uncontrollable ecological chain reactions, unknown pathogens, and a dangerous privatisation of conservation.
Case studies in de-extinction
- The mammoth in the room
Colossal’s flagship project aims to create cold-resistant “mammophants” to repopulate Siberia. While CEO Ben Lamm claims this will combat climate change by restoring Arctic grasslands, Russian ecologists note:
- The Pleistocene Park experiment (using existing herbivores) shows limited success
- Permafrost is already thawing catastrophically
- $75 million invested here could instead protect 150,000 sq km of intact Arctic habitat
- The Tasmanian Tiger gamble
Thylacine Biosciences promises to resurrect this marsupial predator by 2028. But Australian biologists warn:
- Its ecological niche has been filled by invasive foxes and feral cats
- No living surrogate exists—wombat pregnancies would be high-risk
- Could spread dormant retroviruses when reintroduced
- The passenger pigeon paradox
Revive & Restore’s project to bring back this extinct bird raises questions:
- Would flocks of 2 billion (like pre-1900) destroy modern crops?
- Who compensates farmers for damage?
- Could they carry avian flu variants dangerous to poultry?
Policy black holes
While the EU and Canada have begun regulating gene drives and synthetic biology, most nations lack specific de-extinction policies. Critical gaps include:
- Liability frameworks
- Who pays if revived species become invasive?
- Are corporations liable for disease outbreaks?
- Global governance
- No UN treaty addresses cross-border release of de-extinct species
- WTO rules could force countries to accept “biotech conservation” products
- Patent problems
- Over 1,000 CRISPR patents already filed on extinct species genetics
- Could create “GMO wildlife” monopolies
“We’re seeing the corporate capture of conservation,” warns Dr. Vandana Shiva. “First they patented seeds, now they want to patent entire species.”
The disease time bomb
When researchers revived a 30,000-year-old “zombie virus” from Siberian permafrost in 2014, it remained infectious. De-extinction could accidentally unleash:
- Ancient pathogens dormant in recovered DNA
- Hybrid diseases from mixing modern and ancient viromes
- Novel vectors if resurrected species lack natural immunities
“It’s not just bringing back the mammoth—it’s bringing back its entire microbial universe,” cautions virologist Dr. Jean-Michel Claverie.
A progressive alternative
Instead of risky de-extinction, DiEM25 and allied scientists propose:
- Rewilding 2.0
- Invest in “low-tech” rewilding first before gambling on unproven de-extinction.
- Prioritise living megafauna (bison, wolves, beavers) that already have measurable positive effects.
- Reject “conservation by corporation”—keep species restoration in public hands.
- Genetic Rescue
- Use CRISPR to help endangered species adapt (e.g., coral heat resistance)
- Ban profit-driven patents on conservation genetics.
Conclusion: Life finds a way – but should we?
As Jurassic Park’s Dr. Malcolm warned, scientists were “so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Thirty years later, we face that choice in reality.
De-extinction may someday have limited, carefully regulated applications. But in our climate emergency, the most ethical, effective conservation remains protecting what still lives—not chasing ghosts of the past.
Policy proposals
- Moratorium on commercial de-extinction until international safeguards exist
- Public ownership of all extinct species genomes
- Strict liability requiring de-extinction firms to insure against ecological damage
Corporations and billionaires (like Colossal’s backers) privatise scientific progress while socialising risks.
They call it de-extinction – we, in DiEM25, call it disaster capitalism for the Anthropocene.
Do you want to be informed of DiEM25's actions? Sign up here
