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.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 2026-05-26 at 10.15
Viewpoint: Double standard—Why does the wellness industry get a free pass while Big Healthcare is treated as morally suspect?
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-11_49_36-AM-2
‘You don’t understand Tolkien’: Skeptic Pope trolls tech giants about the exaggerated, risk-less benefits of AI
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-01_27_58-PM
Viewpoint—N.A.D.+: Why Gwenyth Paltrow’s heralded anti-aging supplement doesn’t work
Screenshot-2026-06-04-at-12.05.08-PM
Cases of brain inflammation surge as U.S. measles pandemic approaches 2000
Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-1.24.46-PM
Challenging anti-GMO disinformation: Why genetically-tweaked crops offer bushels of benefits
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_42_17 AM (1)
Viewpoint: Greenpeace and poison: How environmental advocacy groups rely on compliant (and often ignorant) journalists to spread disinformation and spark litigation
Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
downsyndrome_compilation_MID_1
CRISPR breakthrough that can remove the chromosome responsible for Down syndrome raises ethical questions
tick-DNA
GLP podcast: Spread meat allergy with gene-edited ticks? Bioethicists pose vile ‘thought experiment’
ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_21_36 AM
Limiting gender affirming interventions: Trump administration targets Texas even though it already bans youth access

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

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