Formatted Apa Report

Running head: THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

A Call for Conversation Regarding the Uses and Dangers of De-Extinction Michael D. Juliano Legal Studies Academy First Colonial High School

1

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

2

Abstract The report analyzes the foundations, applications, and moral concerns of the discipline of de-extinction in order to promote intelligent and necessary conversations. This sphere has seen both success and failure with regards to the species that have been reinstated into the animal kingdom. Much of this technology is still developing, and current resources limit what these scientists, accused of playing the role of God, can accomplish. A legal standpoint will be equally inspected to ascertain which laws apply, do not apply, and possibly apply to de-extinct creations.

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

3

A Call for Conversation Regarding the Uses and Dangers of De-Extinction As the end of the 20th century neared, many spectacular feats were accomplished in the field of biological science. The first sheep was cloned, and today the name “Dolly” is immediately recognized by biologists around the world. CRISPR was conceived, and now the possibilities for this gene editing technique are endless. Not to mention the first human surrogate mother successfully gave birth just over 30 years ago (Johnson, 1987). What was once thought impossible is now possible, and de-extinction is no exception. De-extinction science draws from the knowledge offered by this boom of organic science to bring dead species back to life. Like these other subfields of biological science, de-extinction is rapidly improving and nobody can truly know the full extent as to what will come from this wildly interesting (and slightly nerveracking) field. The question people need to start asking is, “Is the world ready for a new age where the lines between the past and present are blurred and the very definition of ‘extinct’ is called into question?” Methodology of De-Extinction Back Breeding Back breeding is when different variations of a species or closely similar species and/or subspecies are selectively bred for certain traits that can be seen in extinct animals. In certain areas, back breeding has already been kicked into full gear and viable results have been yielded. Aurochs. In Europe, different breeds of cattle are crossbred to more closely resemble the muscular auroch, an animal that went extinct in the 1600s. With each passing year, these European facilities breed cattle that look more and more like their distant auroch cousins (National Post, 2018).

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

4

Direwolves. In the States, back breeding is being used with dogs to recreate the direwolf. Huskies and other wolf-like dogs are being selectively bred to produce offspring with large bodies and thick furry coats. While these carefully conceived canines look like direwolves, they do not act like them since the predatorial qualities of the extinct beast have not been back bred into these dogs (National American Alsatian Breeders Association, 2011-2018). Quaggas. Quaggas are a subspecies of the stereotypical black and white African zebra that went extinct in the late 1800s due to overhunting. They are highly similar to zebras, with the most noticeable difference being the tanned and half-striped bodies in place of black and white stripes. The Quagga Project has successfully produced multiple quaggas (or quagga-like zebras) by selectively breeding zebras for the traits that were seen in quaggas. Based out of South Africa, this project was founded in 1987 and it is still breeding strong today. In August 2018, the most recent edition to their quagga herd, Rachel, was born, and the foal is in excellent health (The Quagga Project, 1987-2018). CRISPR and Gene Editing CRISPR, or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (Vidyasagar, 2018), has many applications, but de-extinction researchers analyze how this genome editing procedure can be used to take the genetic makeup from a living species and alter it in order to more closely resemble that of an extinct species. Genome editing (also known as genetic engineering) is when the genes of an animal are artificially changed to code for different traits. This could be applied with numerous animals, such as a typical pigeon being genetically edited to portray the colors of a passenger pigeon (Wenz, 2018) or an Asian elephant coded to show a brown fur pelt (Wray, 2017). This gene editing technology is expanding at a rapid rate, and what it can accomplish is mind-blowing. Just recently, a professor based in Hong Kong claimed to have rid twin babies of

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

5

the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) by using CRISPR; however, it is worth noting that the Chinese professor, He Jiankui, has mysteriously vanished since his controversial announcement (Grossman, 2018). Cloning and DNA Insertion Out of all the proposed methods to resurrect extinct species, cloning would yield the most precise and genetically similar results. Unlike back-breeding and gene editing, cloning does not alter the genetic materials of currently living animals; rather, it takes the preserved genetic material of extinct animals and directly uses it to de-extinct that said animal. Woolly mammoths. While many of these extinct cloning candidates have been dead for thousands of years, the organic materials of these animals (such as blood cells and tissue samples) have been preserved. This is most clearly seen with animals that went extinct in extremely cold environments, such as the woolly mammoth and the woolly rhinoceros (The Telegraph, 2009). Viable tissue samples of these animals have been found preserved in Russia’s Siberian ice, and the DNA of these animals has been found mostly intact. Some of these unearthed behemoths even bleed when they are removed from their frozen resting place, and many of these extinct woolly mammoths have even been found with their fur, limbs, and organs all (for the most part) in the anatomically correct location. This can be seen with Lyuba, a baby mammoth that died over 40,000 years ago. Lyuba’s carcass has been so well preserved that it appears to be a sleeping animal instead of a mummified fossil (The Telegraph, 2009). In order for the method of cloning animals back into existence to work, a surrogate mother would be needed. A surrogate mother would need to be similar and distantly related to that extinct animal. In theory, preserved mammoth sperm would be inserted into the egg of an Asian elephant outside of the fallopian tube (via in vitro fertilization or IVF) and the elephant would give birth to a

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

6

hybrid species. After this process has been repeated, the byproduct of this IVF would be less and less of a hybrid and more closely resemble the desired extinct animal; however, it will never 100% be the same as the extinct animal. Tasmanian tiger. The Tasmanian tiger (also referred to as a thylacine) went extinct in the 1930s due to human activities that completely decimated the species. Unlike the name, the Tasmanian tiger is a marsupial (pouch-bearing mammal) akin to the Australian kangaroo; however, unlike the kangaroo, it was a predatory animal that acted in ways similar to wild dogs and wolves. Mostly preserved DNA has been analyzed from infant Tasmanian tigers and this has allowed an astonishingly accurate genome of the animal to be sequenced; the correct order of the nucleotide DNA bases has been figured out for this marsupial’s genome (Pickrell, 2017). In the future scientists hope to perfect this sequenced DNA and insert it into the egg of the Tasmanian devil, a closely related species (ABC NEWS, 2018). Rhinoceroses. The potential to clone the northern white rhino is being considered after the last male died in captivity this year. The DNA of this rhino species is safely secured in facilities throughout the world, and the southern white rhino is the perfect candidate to be a surrogate mother since all of the surviving female northern white rhinos are past breeding age. Technically the northern white rhino is not extinct; rather, the correct terminology to describe the animal’s predicament would be “near threatened” (IUCN, 2018). A similar cloning procedure could be used with the West African black rhino that went extinct back in 2013 (Knight, 2013). For this subspecies of the black rhino, preserved DNA could hypothetically be inserted into the East African black rhino to help save yet another species of extinct rhino. In Asia, many subspecies of the Javan rhino have similarly been pushed to extinction and the remaining subspecies of this animal that are still in existence have less than 100 members (Main, 2013).

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

7

Assuming there is preserved genetic material from these rhinos, the same biological technology that can be applied to their African counterparts can be applied to them as well. Past De-Extinction and Developing De-Extinction The Bucardo The bucardo was a goat-like animal that went extinct in the mountainous regions between France and Spain in the year 2000. The DNA was extracted from a deceased bucardo and scientists successfully created multiple clone cells. These clones were later inserted into various surrogate goat mothers of similar goat species. The bodies of most of the goats would not originally accept the clones and miscarriages were common for the few that did. One surrogate mother successfully became pregnant and gave birth to a bucardo; unfortunately, the animal she gave birth to had serious respiratory issues and died after only a few minutes (Zimmer, 2013). The health issues that this cloned bucardo had are akin to other health issues that are possible with cloned animals in general. Inserting a foreign baby into a surrogate mother (especially one that is not of the same species) takes things outside of the natural order and forces the body to cope with something it is not necessarily meant to cope with. While cloning animals in general has improved tremendously and has been mostly perfected since the practice first started, slight errors can affect the development of the baby animal either inside the womb or later in its life (S. Roberts, personal communication, October 22, 2018). Rheobatrachus silus Australian scientists working for the Lazarus Project have inserted the clones of this extinct gastric brooding (eggs incubated in female’s stomach) frog into a surrogate mother of living frog species. While the embryos of the Rheobatrachus silus died after only partly developing, the mere fact that an embryo was even formed is extraordinary (Quick, 2013). These

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

8

results are promising for other potential de-extinction projects that aim to utilize cloning methods to bring other de-extinction candidates back into this world. Common De-Extinction Misconceptions Dinosaurs can definitely not be brought back to life since their DNA is simply too far gone. DNA breaks down after an animal dies and scientists estimate, on average, that half of the bonds in DNA are broken every 500 years. This is why de-extinction from a scientific perspective deals with animals that have gone extinct in a relatively recent period of time. Dinosaur DNA is completely gone since these giant bird-like reptiles went extinct 66 million years ago. Another myth is that substances such as amber can preserve DNA for a long enough period of time to make a resurrection of the dinosaurs possible. While amber does significantly slow down the destruction of a deceased animal’s DNA, the destruction will still occur and will not be available 66 million years later. For the foreseeable future the closest the world will get to the Jurassic Park franchise is the projected completion of an animatronic dinosaur theme park (Carboni, 2013). If anything, people will see something closer to the cast of animals seen in Twentieth Century Fox’s Ice Age come back into the world first. Opponent Arguments Animal Cruelty De-extinction runs the risk for resurrected animals to experience unforeseen problems, such as organ failure. Genetic problems could occur as well, a very real possibility should scientists use the DNA of extinct animals from a dysfunctional gene pool. Using the wrong DNA templates such as that of the incest-breeding mammoths from eastern Siberia’s Wrangel Island (Wade, 2017) would be incredibly detrimental. As Beth Shapiro (2017), accredited biologist and author of How to Clone a Mammoth, put it, "I wouldn't recommend using a Wrangel Island

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

9

mammoth as a template." Also the surrogate mother may reject her offspring when she sees how different it is from her (S. Roberts, personal communication, October 22, 2018). Some of these animals may never be able to enter their natural environments since other species now occupy them, or these environments have been severely altered. Not to mention, valuable animal parts such as horns, tusks, and pelts are sold illegally for substantial amounts of money on the black market. Would biologists be able to guarantee the safety from poachers of these rare and expensive de-extinct animals if they were to be re-introduced into their natural environments? Viral Resurgences A retrovirus is a virus that has genetic material composed of ribonucleic acid (RNA). Animals today have developed a resistance to many of these long-dead retroviruses, and that explains why some viruses have not been around for thousands and thousands of years. Should extinct animals that have not developed a resistance to these retroviruses be reintroduced into their natural environments, a catastrophic and deadly retroviral force could be released upon the Earth (S. Roberts, personal communication, October 22, 2018). However, the true risk of a retroviral resurgence is debated by many scientists, and many are far more concerned with the “moral hazards” of de-extinction (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 2014). Invasive Species The reintroduction of de-extinct species could harm current species living in environments. There is almost always a change in the ecosystem when a new species is introduced; more often than not it is for the worst (S. Roberts, personal communication, October 22, 2018). Entire food chains would be thrown out of balanced if a de-extinct species is reintroduced into an ecosystem that is neither natural nor compatible for them. One way to combat this fear would be to build controlled environments known as bio domes. These

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

10

environment-mimicking domes would enable scientists to observe if a formerly extinct species could interact with the vegetation and animal life of the desired environment without causing any major and irreversible destruction (Koebler, 2013). Protecting Endangered Species With thousands of animals going extinct today, is the costly process of de-extinction (one estimate has resurrecting the woolly mammoth at 10 million dollars) really where the money should be going (Wade, 2008)? Many environmental scientists will agree that the Earth is heading towards a sixth mass extinction (Carrington, 2017). Unlike past mass extinctions, this one will be caused by human activities. For an aversion to take place, serious financial backing would need to be put into both protecting endangered species and the habitats with which they reside in. Proponents of de-extinction will argue that bringing extinct species back from the dead could help shine the light on the severity of allowing an entire species to die out. Additionally, portions of the money that is gained from de-extinction projects could be donated to conservation organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Public Opinion Much of the public would likely not line up in support of de-extinction and the methods used to attain it. Today, procedures such as cross breeding different species, selectively breeding animals within a species, cloning, and CRISPR are considered to be unethical to many Americans and the world in general. A 2017 survey showed that Americans who found the cloning of animals to be inherently wrong outnumbered those who found it acceptable by an approximate ratio of 2:1 (Masci, 2017). Proponent Arguments Satisfy Missing Environmental Needs

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

11

When these animals were in their prime, they used to play a role in their respective environments. Typically this role involved keeping the population of another species in check. When one species is allowed to reproduce without anything killing it or keeping its population at a steady level, that one species can single-handedly destroy the biodiversity in an environment. One argument made by auroch-revival junkies is that these massive cows could help keep Europe’s sprawling grass populations in check as they successfully did four centuries ago (National Post, 2018). Scientific Research Scientists would be able to better understand how these animals of the past behaved. For some of these extinct animals, it is not known how they went extinct. If we were able to study them real time we could get a better idea of how they potentially went extinct. Additionally important, numerous theories could have more facts put behind them. People would be able to gain knowledge about how the evolutionary process worked and how the common ancestors of both living and extinct animals behaved (Biology Wise Staff, 2018). For instance, Asian elephants and woolly mammoths both descended from the primelephas, an animal whose genus translates into “first elephant.” Should scientists be able to de-extinct the woolly mammoths, they will obtain a more informed idea of how the primelephas behaved. Similarities between the genetic structure of animals that are comparable in both appearance and behavior, yet highly contrastable in terms of their biological family, could be studied. This would come into effect with a sequenced genome of the Tasmanian tiger, since evolutionary scientists still do not understand precisely why an animal that bears its young in a pouch would develop the same canine qualities seen in wolves (Pickrell, 2017). CRISPR technology could also be expanded by

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

12

applying it to de-extinction and an expansion of gene editing knowledge could lead to human medical benefits. Sanctuaries Sanctuaries would help people appreciate and observe animals just like zoological parks do today. Additionally, sanctuaries could direct some of their profits towards programs that help to protect endangered species. Strict guidelines would need to be set; however, independent agencies must be allowed to enter these sanctuaries at random times to ensure that animal keepers are not attempting to hide the pain or deformities that any of these animals may have. On the other hand, there could be sanctuaries that are not open to the public at all. Such a sanctuary, known as Pleistocene Park, already exists in Siberia for animals such as reindeer and bison. The current protector of this park, Nikita Zimov, intends to turn this park into a modern Ice Age by introducing hundreds of woolly mammoths into the park to help cut back on sprawling vegetation growth (Andersen, 2017). Human Culprits Many of these extinct animals that are up for de-extinction consideration went extinct due to human activities. Animals such as the passenger pigeon and the auroch have gone extinct as a direct result of human hunting, exploitation, and encroachment. In fact, from 1900 to 2015, close to 500 animals have gone extinct as a direct result of human annihilation (Ranosa, 2015). Is there an obligation to right a wrong or should the past be left in the past? Last Line of Defense Tremendous swathes of animals are projected to go extinct in the near future. The majority (two-thirds) of the animals that are endangered today are expected to be extinct by the time humanity enters the 22nd century (Kotecki, 2018). A census of African elephants, the

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

13

largest of the land mammals, has shown the species declining at an annual rate of 8 percent (Braun, 2017). Despite laws restricting the sale of ivory, protection from over a hundred organizations and charities, a World Elephant Day, and armed anti-poaching militias across Africa, including a female fighting force in Zimbabwe (Barbee, 2017), the descendants of the mastodons are still on the path towards extinction. Animal charities, wildlife funds, and organizations that bring awareness to endangered species provide much-needed relief to the animals that fall under their umbrella of protection; however, there is only so much they can do to protect them from a human-dominated world that constantly makes the survival less and less feasible. The best option to save a species would certainly not be utilizing de-extinction technology, but in any problematic situation it is always wise to have a last resort. Current Laws Endangered Species The Endangered Species Act of 1973 directs all environmental agencies such as the the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in their appropriate jurisdictions to prevent the sale, habitat modification, and general killing of endangered species (United States Government, 2017). The Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 requires animals in imminent threat of extinction to be listed as ‘endangered.’ Species brought back from extinction would not immediately qualify as self-sustainable, prompting the question of whether or not de-extinct species would be considered endangered. Another hypothetical point of debate would be if extinct animals that previously held the status of being ‘endangered’ under the the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (species that went extinct after the year 1966) would still retain this crucial description should scientists find some way to revitalize those species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2018). This question has

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

14

not been publicly addressed; although, it was a major argument in this past summer’s billiondollar blockbuster, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Despite being highly contentious, this question was answered when a pro-dinosaur group wanted the United States Congress to allocate funds to protect isolated dinosaurs from mortal danger. A majority of congressmen and congresswomen in the film voted to not take action to save the dinosaurs, arguing that these deextinct giants are not protected under the Endangered Species Act; rather falling under the protection of the private company that created them. Genetically Modified and Selectively Bred Organisms In Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company, the The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the biotechnology corporation and, in doing so, decided that the genetically modified seeds created by Monsanto were intellectual property protected by Monsanto’s patent. As a result of this ruling, the precedent was set that companies hold the right to any genetically modified organisms that they create and fully-enforceable patents can be obtained by these companies (Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company, Et Al., 2013). Animals brought back from the dead would be considered GMOs and this would provide a favorable precedent to any scientific companies working in the field of de-extinction. Codified laws are in place as well to prevent the over-breeding of dogs, and certain traits that would be ill-suited for an animal are disallowed from being bred ("Standards of Care," 2013). This could be applied to de-extinction since scientists that wish to selectively breed animals would need to follow breeding laws and they would not be able to subvert these laws like backyard dog breeders. Conclusion When cloning first started, people did not forsee how prevalent it would eventually become. This same mindset is akin to de-extinction, and discussion of this topic should be

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

15

promoted so people will be ready for an acceleration of de-extinction science in the future. Deextinction has proven its legitimacy with varying degrees of success. With such rapid improvements being made, questions concerning the boundaries of human ingenuity are being asked. Like all sciences that involve animal testing, the beginning stages of de-extinction are bound to result in issues while succeeding stages should be more precise with a higher degree of success. While the Jurassic Park movies are thrilling, people can no longer deny that the concept of de-extinction is purely fictitious.

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

16

References ABC NEWS. (2018, August 22). Extinct Tasmanian tiger could be cloned. ABC news. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120013&page=1 Andersen, R. (2017, April). Welcome to Pleistocene Park. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/pleistocene-park/517779/ Barbee, J. (2017, December 16). Africa's new elite force: women gunning for poachers and fighting for a better life. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/17/poaching-wildlife-africaconservation-women-barbee-zimbabwe-elephant-rhino Biology Wise Staff. (2018). Pros and cons of de-extinction. Retrieved November 28, 2018, from https://biologywise.com/pros-cons-of-de-extinction Braun, D. M. (2017, March 3). Will Africa's big five become extinct in the wild? National Geographic. Retrieved from https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2017/03/03/will-africas-big-five-become-extinct-inthe-wild/ Carboni, A. (2013, April 4). Can we build a real Jurassic Park? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=446cFXMTqvE Carrington, D. (2017, July 10). Earth's sixth mass extinction event underway, scientists warn. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinctionevent-already-underway-scientists-warn Ehrlich, P., & Ehrlich, A. H. (2014, January 13). The case against de-Extinction: It’s a fascinating but dumb idea. Retrieved November 26, 2018, from

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

17

https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_against_deextinction_its_a_fascinating_but_dumb_idea Grossman, D. (2018, December 3). The infamous CRISPR baby scientist is missing. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a25383837/crispr-baby-scientist-hemissing/ IUCN. (2018). The IUCN red list of threatened species. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://www.iucnredlist.org/ Knight, M. (2013, November 6). Western black rhino declared extinct [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/10/world/africa/rhino-extinct-speciesreport/index.html Koebler, J. (2013, April 4). Reviving extinct animals could lead to 'invasive species from the past'. U.S. News. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/04/reviving-extinct-animals-could-leadto-invasive-species-from-the-past Kotecki, P. (2018, October 15). So many animals will go extinct in the next 50 years that it will take Earth at least 3 million years to recover, a study has found. Retrieved December 14, 2018, from https://www.businessinsider.com/animals-going-extinctrecovery-3-million-years-2018-10 Main, D. (2013, January 3). Javan rhino officially extinct in Vietnam. Retrieved December 20, 2018, from https://www.livescience.com/25967-vietnam-rhinoextinct.html

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

18

Masci, D. (2017, February 22). 20 years after Dolly the sheep's debut, Americans remain skeptical of cloning [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2017/02/22/20-years-after-dolly-the-sheeps-debut-americans-remain-skeptical-ofcloning/ National American Alsatian Breeders Association. (2011-2018). Breeding back. Retrieved November 20, 2018, from http://www.direwolfproject.com/projectlogistics/breeding-back/ National Post. (2018). Scientists edge closer to bringing back the aurochs, the fearsome cattle breed last seen in the 1600s. The National Post. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/news/world/scientists-edge-closer-to-bringing-back-the-aurochthe-fearsome-cattle-breed-last-seen-in-the-1600s Pickrell, J. (2017, December 11). Tasmanian tiger genome may be first step toward deextinction. National Geographic. Retrieved from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/thylacine-genome-extinct-tasmanian-tigercloning-science/ The Quagga Project (Ed.). (1987-2018). The quagga revival South Africa. Retrieved December 6, 2018, from https://quaggaproject.org/ Quick, D. (2013, March 18). Scientists clone extinct frog that gives birth from its mouth. Retrieved November 21, 2018, from https://newatlas.com/extinct-gastric-brooding-frogcloned/26687/ Ranosa, T. (2015, June 30). Humans: Cause of extinction of nearly 500 species since 1900. Tech Times. Retrieved from

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

19

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/64542/20150630/humans-cause-of-extinction-ofnearly-500-species-since-1900.htm Roberts, S. (2018, October 22). [Personal interview by the author]. Standards of care for dog and cat breeders [Review [Title of Reviewed Work], by J. L. Kaminski]. (2013, September 6). Retrieved November 28, 2018, from Old research report website: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0309.htm The Telegraph. (2009, October 5). Baby woolly mammoth provides secrets of survival in Ice Age. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJvIj9suPeAhV GmeAKHeFDckQjhx6BAgBEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fscien ce%2Fscience-news%2F6261226%2FBaby-woolly-mammoth-provides-secrets-ofsurvival-in-IceAge.html&psig=AOvVaw0a6pydIPe8Ggweaj87dwcr&ust=1542817939607954 United States Government. (2017, August 8). Summary of the Endangered Species Act. Retrieved November 28, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summaryendangered-species-act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2018, December 11). Endangered Species Act. Retrieved December 18, 2018, from https://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/esahistory.html Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company, et al., No. 11-796 (May 13, 2013). Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-796

THE USES AND DANGERS OF DE-EXTINCTION

20

Vidyasagar, A. (2018, April 20). What is CRISPR. Retrieved November 20, 2018, from https://www.livescience.com/58790-crispr-explained.html Wade, N. (2008, November 19). Regenerating a mammoth for $10 million. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html Wade, N. (2017, March 6). The mammoths last stand: How the Wrangel Island herd died off. Anchorage daily news. Retrieved from https://www.adn.com/arctic/2017/03/06/thewooly-mammoths-last-stand-how-the-wrangel-island-herd-died-off/ Wenz, J. (2018, September 10). Inching Toward De-Extinction: Can CRISPR Resurrect Passenger Pigeons? Discover. Retrieved from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/dbrief/2018/09/10/de-extinction-passenger-pigeon-crispr-revive-restore/#.W_QyhGhKjrc Wray, B. (2017, September 1). CRISPR may prove useful in de-extinction efforts. Retrieved November 20, 2018, from https://www.the-scientist.com/readingframes/crispr-may-prove-useful-in-de-extinction-efforts-30992 Zimmer, C. (2013, April). Bringing them back to life. National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/04/species-revival-bringingback-extinct-animals/