Thu, Aug 05, 2021:On Demand
Background/Question/Methods
Contemporary extinction rate is considerably higher than the average over the last 10 million years and is accelerating. Currently, approximately 150 species a day go extinct and more than a million species are threatened with extinction in the coming decades. Such losses of species are a result of humans and their actions that have severely altered more than 50 % of terrestrial and marine environment due to - habitat alteration, climate change, resource extraction, invasive species spread, and human population growth. Technological and ecological know how makes the possibility of correcting this biodiversity extinction crisis a possibility in the near future, resulting in restoring ecosystems and functions. Success of cloning and molecular engineering techniques and availability of genetic material increases the possibility of resurrecting extinct species. Since de-extinction presents both risks and benefits, a large body of work has discussed its potential impacts especially in the light of ethical responsibility to remediate the past. However, a large gap remains in evaluating tradeoffs and no framework exists. For a successful de-extinction effort, such a framework would be necessary and ideal. To address this lack of tools, we developed a structured decision making (SDM) framework to assist decision makers in identifying and addressing the potential consequences, risks, and tradeoffs inherent whenever de-extinction is being considered. In this framework, we define major categories of objectives, measurable attributes, and a scale which weighs and balances them with alternative actions.
Results/Conclusions Our framework was built on four comprehensive categories inherent to making informed decisions on de-extinction: Ecological-Biological, Cultural-Ethical, Socioeconomic, and Political-Legal aspects of de-extinction. Within each category, we developed finer-scale criteria and measurement scales for assessing positive and negative impacts of de-extincting a species. The framework is applicable globally and can be customized according to the specific needs of the decision makers. We demonstrated how the model works with three candidate species that differed in their historic ranges, which were run through the framework as examples to demonstrate its efficacy. The ability to apply the framework to these diverse species suggests that it can be rigorously applied. Given the possibility of de-extinction in the near future, this framework provides a path for prioritization of species de-extinction in a transparent, scientific, and structured manner. By framing de-extinction decisions as choices among alternatives, we balance attention on the risks of de-extinction vs. potential benefits of de-extinction and opportunity costs of choosing not to de-extinctify.
Results/Conclusions Our framework was built on four comprehensive categories inherent to making informed decisions on de-extinction: Ecological-Biological, Cultural-Ethical, Socioeconomic, and Political-Legal aspects of de-extinction. Within each category, we developed finer-scale criteria and measurement scales for assessing positive and negative impacts of de-extincting a species. The framework is applicable globally and can be customized according to the specific needs of the decision makers. We demonstrated how the model works with three candidate species that differed in their historic ranges, which were run through the framework as examples to demonstrate its efficacy. The ability to apply the framework to these diverse species suggests that it can be rigorously applied. Given the possibility of de-extinction in the near future, this framework provides a path for prioritization of species de-extinction in a transparent, scientific, and structured manner. By framing de-extinction decisions as choices among alternatives, we balance attention on the risks of de-extinction vs. potential benefits of de-extinction and opportunity costs of choosing not to de-extinctify.