Extinct species certainly should not be brought back into existence by the process of de-extinction. De-extinction is defined as the cloning of extinct species using biotechnology and DNA samples from the ancient past, which was stated in the beginning of text 1 by, Angela Herring. This process could result in some remarkable outcomes, but also a great deal of complications which lead to the idea that de-extinction is a bad idea.
Many species that once lived on earth have gone into extinction and are no longer apart of the ecosystem they once inhabited.
Once that specific organism has disappeared from the area, all the others who also inhabited that area must adjust and find a way to carry on. One way de-extinction would be problematic is that if an organism returned to existence, it would be difficult for it to go back to how it was before going extinct. “Resurrecting a population and then re-inserting it into habitats where it could supply the ecosystem services of its predecessor is a monumentally bigger project” (Text 4, Lines 9-10) Even though the process involves cloning and reconfiguring how life was beforehand, it will never truly be the same.
One of the most recognizable issues with de-extinction is the cost. The process of bringing an extinct organism back to life comes with a price. All the researching and experimenting that goes into the process is quite expensive, but not as much as the actual process itself. Although scientists have said this is possible, there is not guarantee that de-extinction will work for sure.
Most of the work put into this project is done at universities and other facilities on relying on a budget that is funded to them. “Too many universities equate excellence with funds generated, not with the societal needs met.” (Pimm, Text 3. Line 40-41) Large amounts of money should not be spent for a process that is controversial to most, and has not even been proven successful.