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. …show more content…
The first problem would be where to put them. Would they be put in the wild or would they be put in captivity? They would have trouble adapting to the wild and in captivity they wouldn't be able to populate as quick as they would if they were in the wild, causing them to die out quicker, Another problem would be hunters trying to hunt them. The animals would be slaughtered for fur, food, or even for sport. Putting them on a no hunting list would only slow down hunters but not stop them. The last problem would be the psychological damage. Bringing back anything from the dead will cause psychological damage. Although it is only the DNA of the dead being planted, there will still be some issue. If the psychological problems aren't from birth, they will arrive as the animal ages. Being a baby and not having their parents around will be a problem, especially if they are sent to the wild. The animals will have to go off their instincts and therefore become more aggressive. When animals become a threat, they are taken down. It would be interesting if we could bring the animals back to life, but the problems that will occur will cause their
At the turn of the new century, activists begun to protest the morality of animal experimentation: “… such methodology is far too cruel on beast, it cannot better mankind, but its lead to it demise…” Despite the rising concern for animal safety in laboratory research, federal legislations approved the practice. According to the federal bureaucrats, it is an essential tool to improve our current medical knowledge. Hence, most of the tested animals have a relatively shorter life span than human. Thus, it allows to test long-term disease in a smaller timeframe. Nonetheless, animal enthusiast request the banishment of animal experimentation in laboratory. Ergo, with our current technology, researchers are capable to reproduce the same result
To develop one living organism through the process of cloning, close to hundreds of organisms die in the process. In fact, during the process of making Dolly, the scientists went through 277 trials to create a clone, and only 29 trials demonstrated the characteristics to possibly survive. Out of all 277 trails and 29 possible survivalist, only Dolly survived (Anthes 62). So by wanting cloning to be successful, scientist completely avoiding animal welfare. The scientist slaughter 276 organism without considering animal welfare. South Korea took the experiments to a new extreme in the process of cloning a dog. The South Koreans experimented on 1,095 clones by putting them into 123 dogs. By the end of all of their trials, only one dog survived (Anthes 71). Through this example, the extreme slaughter of 1,094 dog displays the protection that animals need from ultimate death established through the means of cloning. If cloning somehow proves not to become more successful in the future, the number of dying animals will rise at a phenomenal rate. By taking a deeper look at the numbers, the successful cloning of one animal might be based entirely on lucky, and new scientific ways may not deem
Chimera Reemerge.” Pacific News Service. 6 December 1995. Newspaper online. Available at http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/columns/heresies/950612-animal.html. Internet. Accessed 10 December 2003.
Today, we as a society world wide have a new issue to deal with. Science has discovered the means in which to clone animals, opening a whole new discussion. Many people are inclined to say why would science even wish to peruse this method of research. Lewis Thomas says in his essay "The Hazards of Science"
...ress it causes for the animal not only the captivity, but also in the capture process. There are many health risks for the animal and it rips them away from their family. These animals are so amazing, but as you can see, it is better for them to stay in their environment with family and not be put on display.
“For many wildlife biologists and conservationists, breeding and conservation-oriented research on captive wildlife are seen as essential activities that should not be halted on the basis of animal welfare and animal rights objections. The ethical imperative to save threatened species from further decline and extinction in the wild has for them a priority over concerns regarding individual animal welfare.” By breeding animals that are in captivity, these animals give birth to their offspring that are then raised in captivity, even if the breeding works these animals will never be able to return to the wild because they will not be able to fend for themselves. Lack of diversity within DNA in captivity is also a large issue. By breeding animals in captivity that have very similar DNA, you create inbred animals which, in most species, have an “infant mortality rate among inbred animals of 100%.” Another issue with breeding is that the DNA will change from what the animals have that are born in the wild, these animals have different traits that are not at all similar to the same animal that is bred in captivity. The largest issue is that many zoos advocate that they are in business to save the animals and are doing so by breeding, but they are only breeding animals that do not need help. We should be supporting “large scale breeding centers rather than conventional zoos, most of which have neither the staff nor the facilities to run successful breeding
“To be opposed to what is going on now it is not necessary to insist that all animal experiments stop immediately. All we need to say is that experiments serving no direct and urgent purpose should stop immediately, and in the remaining fields of research, we should, whenever possible, seek to replace experiments that involve animals with alternative methods that do not.”
Scientists have been attempting to recreate the woolly mammoth's genetic information. They have made bringing back the woolly mammoth or even other extinct animals “theoretically” possible. We are still deciding if bringing the woolly mammoth back into the environment is attainable and if this is what scientists should be focusing on, as well the pros and cons of this process. The scientists call it: de-extinction. Before I explain how this will be even scientifically possible, let’s compare this as a real life Jurassic Park experience, at first it was an ingenious idea. Additionally, can we talk about how much this will affect us? They are starting the process currently, and in about the next three years, we will have a real life woolly mammoth roaming the earth. We have little time to panic as our awaited deaths will be soon from a “science experiment”. Many people are concerned about the impact this will have on ecosystems and environments, and how this technology could make de-extinction a real part of our future.
Animals are used as a part of experimentations in order to accomplish new openings. A few individuals think that it is satisfactory, while others contend that it is not moral to sacrifice animals for science. Estimated, that fifty to one hundred million of animals are used for tests in the world. Despite the significance of experiments, the quantity of animals and purpose of research are not under any control. Animals testing should be banned under a few circumstances; we can enhance the situation by using alternative ways such as replacement, reduction, and refinement according to International Society for Applied Ethology.
Animal Experimentation. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "Avoiding Animal Testing: Advances in Cell-Culture Technologies are Paving the Way to the Complete Elimination of Animals from the Laboratory." The Scientist (Nov.-Dec. 2011). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 16 May 2014.
"Animal Experimentation: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions." IDEA: International Debate Education Association - Debate Resources & Debate Tools. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. .
---. “Animal Cloning—How Unethical Is It?- Final Draft.” UTSA: WRC 1023, 7 Mar 2014. Print.
Devlin, Hannah. "Don't Let The Forces Of Unreason Stop Research; Scientists Should Be Braver In Defending Animal Experiments And Open Up Their Labs Series: Editorial; Opinion, Columns." Times of London 7, 07 2013,: n. pag. eLibrary. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
One of the most unsettling experiments that is conducted includes taking organs from one species and transplanting them into another, which is known as xenotransplantation. The practice of genetic engineering in animals destroys the life of one animal to create specific, unnatural traits in another. Research has shown that people will only agree and accept the practice of animal experimentation when they think that the animals do not experience suffering. However, if the experiments were broadcast more publicly, this issue would not exist.
In defense of Animals, “The Animal Reasurch Industry Needs More Oversite.” Animal Experimentation San Diego, California. 2002.99-105. Print.