Conservation vs. De-extinction – A Critical Analysis
Introduction to De-extinction and the Role of Biotechnology
In recent years, the convergence of biotechnology and conservation has introduced a novel, albeit controversial, concept: de-extinction. This involves reviving extinct species using gene-editing technologies. Colossal Biosciences, a U.S.-based firm backed by Harvard geneticist George Church, is working on reviving the woolly mammoth and dire wolf. Their claim is that these species, once integral to Ice Age ecosystems, could now play a role in mitigating global warming. However, such initiatives raise important scientific, ethical, ecological, and legal questions.
The Climate Argument: Restoring Ice Age Ecosystems
Supporters of de-extinction argue that mammoths, by trampling and grazing on shrubs, once maintained grasslands that helped preserve Arctic permafrost. As climate change melts permafrost, trapped methane—a greenhouse gas more potent than CO₂—is released. By reviving mammoth-like creatures, some scientists hope to replicate past ecosystems and stabilize the climate. Similar experiments are underway in Siberia. While intriguing, the practicality and scalability of such solutions remain speculative and scientifically unverified.
Scientific Developments and the Dire Wolf Controversy
Colossal also claims to have genetically recreated the dire wolf, an extinct species related to the gray wolf, by editing 20 genes and creating three “snow-white wolves.” However, this claim lacks peer-reviewed validation, and many scientists argue that these are merely genetically altered gray wolves, not true dire wolves. This raises the question of authenticity and accountability in biotechnology. As seen in the controversial case of Chinese scientist He Jiankui, unregulated genetic experimentation can lead to major ethical violations.
Legal and Constitutional Dimensions in India
In the Indian context, such technological interventions are bound by several legal and constitutional safeguards:
•Article 48A (Directive Principles of State Policy) mandates the State to “protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.”
•Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to “protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife.”
•The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 provides a legal framework for the protection of species and habitats, emphasizing the need to conserve existing biodiversity rather than revive extinct species.
•The Environment Protection Act, 1986 empowers the central government to take measures for environmental preservation, including regulation of biotechnological research.
•Additionally, the National Biodiversity Act, 2002 stresses the conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.
Reviving extinct species without a defined policy framework may conflict with these laws, particularly in terms of ecosystem balance, species introduction, and gene manipulation.
Conservation Priorities and Resource Allocation
The core criticism of de-extinction is its opportunity cost. With thousands of species currently endangered due to habitat loss, pollution, and climate change, pouring millions into speculative ventures risks diverting crucial funds from immediate conservation efforts. These revived species may never fully restore ancient ecosystems, and may even disturb current ecological balances. Conservation must focus on strengthening existing ecosystems, enforcing environmental laws, and promoting community-driven wildlife protection.
UPSC Topic Relevance and Linkages
This topic connects with several components of the UPSC syllabus:
•GS Paper III (Environment & Ecology):
•Conservation strategies
•Biodiversity protection
•Climate change and ecological restoration
•Biotechnology and environmental ethics
•GS Paper II (Polity & Governance):
•Constitutional provisions (Articles 48A and 51A(g))
•Implementation of environmental laws
•Governance and policy response to scientific innovation
•GS Paper IV (Ethics):
•Ethical dilemmas in science and technology
•Responsibility of scientists and regulatory bodies
•Long-term societal implications of experimental innovations
Conclusion: Innovation Must Serve Real-world Ecology
While de-extinction is a fascinating frontier of modern science, its conservation value remains unproven and ethically debatable. In a country like India, where biodiversity is both rich and fragile, the focus must remain on protecting what still exists. Scientific advancement must be guided by constitutional ethics, legal safeguards, and ecological pragmatism. Any deviation from this can weaken real-time conservation efforts that are critical to sustainable development.
