This is the first in a series of EcoTone posts on a recent <\/em>TEDxDeExtinction<\/em><\/a> event. You can watch the presentations, hosted by the National Geographic Society, <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 The talks will be edited and posted to YouTube in a few weeks.\u00a0 NGS showcases de-extinction in the lead story of its April issue <\/em>here<\/em><\/a>.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n \u201cMaybe it\u2019s time to coin a new term,\u201d said Stanley Temple, a long-time conservation biologist who played key roles in preventing species such as the Peregrine Falcon and Whooping Crane from going extinct.\u00a0 We were already well into the \u2018Why & Why Not\u2019 portion of TEDxDeExtinction on Friday, March 15, and it was clear that Temple, the man who occupied Aldo Leopold\u2019s chair at the University of Wisconsin for 32 years, has deep reservations about reversing extinction through genetic engineering.\u00a0 But he also clearly believes that conservation biologists need to be part of developments as the quest to revive extinct species inevitably moves forward.\u00a0 Thus: \u201cResurrection Ecology.\u201d<\/p>\n Update [3\/21\/13, 4 PM] Temple told me he misspoke and meant to say \u201cResurrection BIOLOGY\u201d since resurrection ecology has been applied to a different topic\u2013limnologists who dredge up eggs from lake sediment to reconstruct past community structure.<\/span><\/p>\n After listening to 6 hours of TEDxDeExtinction presentations last Friday, my head was spinning with gripping stories of charismatic and extinct species such as the Thylacine<\/a> (a meat-eating marsupial\u2014its name means dog-headed, pouched one), the biological, ethical and political dilemmas of \u201cbringing back\u201d species, and descriptions of the genetic techniques underway to make this is a reality.<\/p>\n Several themes threaded throughout the event.\u00a0 Here are two of them that are closely intertwined: 1. A strong concern that revival of extinct species could make current efforts to save endangered species even harder, and 2. The potential for gene technology to help save today\u2019s endangered species.<\/p>\n To the first theme:<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve got our hands full\u201d trying to save what\u2019s still here now, said Stanley Temple. Temple<\/a>, a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin, is worried that de-extinction efforts could destabilize already difficult conservation efforts. We already have a tendency to rely on technological \u201cfixes\u201d, he said. If extinction isn\u2019t forever, then the attitude could become, \u2018let it go extinct, we can always bring it back later.\u2019<\/p>\n But are too many of us already either unconcerned or feeling helpless about the many species slipping into extinction? \u00a0Would revival of extinct species give a green light to a more cavalier attitude towards loss of species?<\/p>\n Rutgers University biology professor David Ehrenfeld<\/a> wants people to consider this: While some are talking about bringing back the woolly mammoth, others are risking their lives to try to save its close relative, the African elephant, which is threatened by poaching.<\/p>\n Ehrenfeld, the founding editor of the scientific journal Conservation Biology<\/em> is not only extremely concerned about the potential distraction from conservation efforts, he is also deeply skeptical that species that might be \u201cbrought back\u201d would be anything like the original species. He pointed to the multitude of ways in which a DNA strand may be interpreted and the interplay of internal and external stimuli which direct how it shapes an individual.\u00a0 In addition, extremely social species would present a further obstacle. The complex behavior of the highly gregarious passenger pigeon, for instance, would make bringing this extinct bird back a huge stumbling block. \u201cThe more complex, the more difficult to predict the consequences,\u201d said Ehrenfeld.<\/p>\n Temple and Ehrenfeld also noted that for species that have been gone for a long time, the environments in which they lived have changed and established a new dynamic equilibrium.\u00a0 That could mean that we \u201crevive\u201d a species that would be completely dependent on us to survive if its former habitat will no longer support it.<\/p>\n However, in recognition that revival efforts are already underway, Temple suggested that perhaps it\u2019s time for \u201cResurrection Ecology\u201d \u2013applying ecological principals to decide which species should be brought back from extinction.<\/p>\n What would be on your list?<\/p>\n Temple suggested that good candidates\u2014from an ecological perspective\u2014would be recently extinct species such as the Thylacine, lost to direct killing endorsed by the Australian government, and the Ivory-billed woodpecker, extinct because of habitat loss.\u00a0 The things that drove them to extinction are no longer an issue.<\/p>\n Conservation biologists know techniques (captive breeding and reintroduction of rare species) that would be helpful to future deextinction efforts, said Temple.\u00a0 But his and Ehrenfeld\u2019s message was clear: our priority should be existing species.<\/p>\n Which brings us to the second theme: that of using genetic techniques to help species that are still with us, but are in trouble. \u00a0Some species are in a genetic bottleneck\u2014so few individuals remain that their collective genetic make-up is impoverished, making the species highly susceptible to dying out. An example is the white rhino, where only seven, closely related, individuals remain.\u00a0 \u201cIt seems to me we\u2019re in a race,\u201d said Oliver Ryder<\/a>, Director of Genetics at the San Diego Zoo.\u00a0 He advocates using genetic technology to introduce more diversity into such rare species.\u00a0 Ehrenfeld said that the best contribution of gene technology would be to bring viable genetic variation into still living but rare species.\u00a0 Temple echoed the sentiment that reviving extinct alleles<\/a> could \u201chelp some rare species have a more secure future.\u201d Alleles are alternative forms of the same gene and are essential in providing variety in a species population to give it the best chance in coping with diseases and with other things or events it may encounter in its environment. Species like the white rhino or black-footed ferret have lost so much genetic diversity that they are vulnerable to any one event wiping them out completely.\u00a0 Reviving extinct alleles could help species like these.<\/p>\n Kate Jones<\/a>, an ecologist at the University of London, admitted an initial horror at the thought of reviving extinct species.\u00a0 But she sees exciting potential for synthetic biology to help save species that are threatened by emerging diseases. An example is the devastating impact the chytrid fungus has had on amphibians, especially frogs. During the event\u2019s lunch break, I sat next to a scientist who works for the National Zoo, who told me about the Amphibian Ark<\/a>, which is trying to ensure the survival of amphibians that can\u2019t be safeguarded in nature because of the chytrid fungus.\u00a0 Genetic technology might be a way to turn things around for frogs and other amphibians.<\/p>\n Temple said he was very curious to see what the reaction from National Geographic<\/em> readers will be about the magazine\u2019s April cover story on reviving extinct species.<\/p>\n What\u2019s yours?<\/p>\n More posts to come, exploring additional aspects of the TEDeExtinction event\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Is it time to define a new field? By Nadine Lymn, ESA public affairs director This is the first in a series of EcoTone posts on a recent TEDxDeExtinction event. You can watch the presentations, hosted by the National Geographic Society, here.\u00a0 The talks will be edited and posted to YouTube in a few weeks.\u00a0 NGS showcases de-extinction in the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":41,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,1114],"tags":[1537,1538,7,1333,870,1265,1026,63,566,709,544,1472,1331,1539,806],"class_list":["post-8542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conservation","category-ecology-about-town","tag-deextinction","tag-tedxdeextinction","tag-conservation","tag-conservation-biology","tag-diversity","tag-dna","tag-endangered","tag-endangered-species","tag-extinct","tag-extinction","tag-genetic-diversity","tag-genetic-engineering","tag-genetic-variation","tag-resurrection-ecology","tag-synthetic-biology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/41"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8542"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8542\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog-preprod\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/90\/2013\/03\/TEDxDeExtinction-photo.jpg\" "\\"TEDxDeExtinction")
<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n