Your work brings renewed attention and awareness to the concept that the reintroduction of threatened, endangered, or extinct species can play a key role in restoring lost ecological functions and values that are sometimes overlooked, or simply taken for granted.”
— Brian Kwiatkowski, Senior Ecologist, Cincinnati, OH
Perhaps the strongest argument for resurrection biology is that it allows wildlife conservationists to push forward against the onslaught of extinction, in some sense to win back territory that has been lost, to engage in restoration, rejuvenation and rewilding. How long can an army remain motivated if it’s never allowed to advance, if it’s only allowed to hold the line or, step by painful step, retreat?” — Adam Welz, “De-extinction critics at Scientific American have missed the point” – The Guardian, 6/7/13.
Up until this point, human influence on the world has largely been destructive. But we are now entering a phase where our influence can be constructive. We can now preserve species not merely by conservation of the environment, but also through the use of genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and other reproductive technologies.”
— Julian Savulescu and Russell Powell, The Conversation, 7/24/13.
I think it [bringing back the mammoth] should be done as long as we can provide great care for the animal. If there are reasonable prospects of them being healthy, we should do it. We can learn a lot about them.”
— Ian Wilmut, “How to clone a mammoth,” The Guardian, 7/31/13.
Why bother (to clone mammoths)? Why bother? Why bother to go on living? Why not just stop breathing if you are that incurious?”
— Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins, 7/15/13.
At some point we will be doing this … We’ve rounded a corner … We need to stop worrying about theoreticals and start discussing how it will happen.”
— Chuck Bonham, Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Stanford Law School Conference, De-Extinction: Ethics, Law & Politics, 5/31/13)