Should we bring the wooly mammoth and other species back from extinction — Yes or no?

Credit: Pixabay/ GDJ
Credit: Pixabay/ GDJ

If you had a chance to save a species from extinction, would you take it? I would—and I am.

There are numerous arguments in favor of de-extinction science, but I want to focus on the most pressing one: conservation. Experts predict that the earth could soon lose at least 40 percent of its biodiversity. My colleagues and I often cite a stat from the Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson: that around 30,000 species are disappearing every year, or nearly three per hour. And yet we have the capacity not only to stop extinction but to reverse it. To save the planet’s biodiversity, de-extinction must become Conservation 2.0.

My team and I at Colossal, a de-extinction company and lab, are establishing protocols, partnerships, and programs to create reproducible, affordable, and efficient processes to bring back marsupial, mammal, and avian species.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

De-extinction is that new generation of science that will prove to be the greatest ally of conservation. And it is already happening. In our efforts to de-extinct the woolly mammoth, we have brought together prominent conservation experts, committed funding to end a deadly elephant herpes virus, and supported assisted reproductive technologies for species outside of our immediate purview.

This is an excerpt. Read the full article here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.noReviewsLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-07-09-at-1.09.25-PM
Anti-vaccine myths rattle health care
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-10-2026-12_21_03-PM
Viewpoint: Is there new evidence that the animal deworming drug ivermectin decreases the risk of Covid and cancer? Don’t waste your money.
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Picture1
Hiroshima at 81: America’s new nuclear bomb, a buried Iranian target, and a question no one wants to ask
leeteam
How Kennedy and his family could pocket millions from Merck’s $50 million vaccine injury settlement that he oversaw
Screenshot-2026-07-30-at-3.07.42-PM
Controversy over WNBA star Sophie Cunningham’s comment opposing trans females in women’s sports reinvigorates the culture wars
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
Screenshot-2026-07-30-at-2.30.35-PM
Climate scientists claim conservative activists are promoting ‘lies’ that Europe’s summer heatwaves are far from unusual
ChatGPT Image Jul 29, 2026, 05_50_04 PM
Fear, science, and the law: If talc powder is unlikely to cause cancer and J&J was winning in court, why did it pay more than $5.5 billion to settle?

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.