Hart 1
Issue Exploration project
Why should extinct animals be brought back to life?
Self-Reflection
While struggling to get this assignment completed I lost my self-control of my emotions a few times. It was way beyond the level of difficulty I had imagined it would be. In other words, this assignment was utter torture to my body and soul.
Though, it did enhance my knowledge of the scientific technologies and the capabilities of them. It is mind-blowing to know that we have the power to bring back the past today. I had assumed that everyone who took the time to write article, give lectures, or just spend their time informing others of this scientific breakthrough was all for the bringing back of mammoths or passenger pigeons. This was not the case. As I read more and more articles I noticed how many people are skeptical to the bringing back of un-studied animals of the past. Many scientists have stated that we need to rationalize how and what species we bring back.
Anyway, the way I went about writing this assignment was the way I have done every essay, with extensive procrastination, tears, and a large amount of no sleep. I need I evaluate and change my way of writing life. But please notice that I did write this entire thing in about two days, so that is pretty impressive if I do say so.
One thing that really stuck a danger in the side of the progress of this assignment was that one of the image sources I was going to use decided to stop existing. That dilemma ate around ten or twenty minutes that could have been used on writing (or sleep.) Which really took a toll on my sanity.

Hart 2
The best part of this devil assignment was that it forced me to truly learn about rhetoric qualities and how to notice them and talk about them. I mean look at the analysis part (starting on page 9.) So, that is awesome! I have always struggled with this part of the English language course in the American educational system.
This assignment internally murdered me. I am now dead inside, for some time at least.
But I am glad I took the Concurrent English 1010 class.

Hart 3
Annotated Bibliography
Biello, David. “Will We Kill Off Today's Animals If We Revive Extinct Ones? De-extinction hopes to revive mammoths, gastric frogs and other missing species, but it might undermine the conservation of creatures that still survive.” Scientificamerican.com. Scientific
American, 19 Mar. 2013. Web. April 9 2014.
The online article Will We Kill Off Today’s Animals If We Revive Extinct Ones? De-extinction hope to revive mammoths, gastric frogs, and other missing species, but it might undermine the
conservation of creatures that still survive was published by Scientific American in 2013. Biello discusses the possible extinction of other animals that have survived because of the revived species; along with the financial problems related to this topic.
The article engages animal-lover‘s sympathy for species that live today and the problems these species may have to face to continue their survival. The writer also addresses the opinions of others to increase the credibility of the article. Biello’s article contains a majority of opinions and insights of others rather than the thoughts of Biello.
I would use this source to get more examples of species scientist wish to bring back to life at this time. It also would be useful in providing the idea of what the cost would be to be able to take care of these de-extinct species. The idea that the money used to protect endangered species may be used to bring back and protect extinct species was also a part of this article that could prove to be useful.
Brand, Stewart. “The Case for De-Extinction: Why We Should Bring Back the Woolly
Mammoth.” Yale.edu. Yale Environment 360, 13 Jan. 2014. Web. 9 April 2014.

Brand’s online article The Case for De-Extinction: Why We Should Bring Back the Woolly
Hart 4
Mammoth was published by Yale Environment 360 in 2014. This article provides the reasoning behind the brining back extinct species pro side of this scientific subject.
This article is interesting in the way that it includes opinions from the writer’s wife and writing for those interested in the Woolly Mammoth’s chance of revival. Brand did well in presenting the logic behind his reasons why the woolly mammoth and other species should be brought back to the world. He loses credibility when he uses non-academic grammar but, he states of his and his wife’s high educational background which gives credibility to the ideas within this article.
I would include the parts of this article that deal with the reasoning of protecting the extinct animals as we, a society, protect species that are endangered. The writer brought up this incredible insight on the ideals of society on species that are now decreasing in number and related it to the debate of riving once lost species.
Lewis, Tanya. “Incredible Technology: How to Bring Extinct Animals Back to Life.”
Livescience.com. Live Science, 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 9 April 2014.
This online article Incredible Technology: How to Bring Extinct Animals Back to Life by Tanya
Lewis was published by Live Science in 2013. This article is, again, an informational one, for readers whom are scientific thinkers. This article introduces the topic of habitat and environmental issues that could occur. It tells mostly of the problems of bringing back extinct animals. And the effects it would have on the planet and on these species if they did come back.
The writer used scientific evidence to support her claim, providing examples of Lewis’s

personal logic on the subject. She also included snippets of other persons’ opinions and
Hart 5 evidence. The subject of the article changes after a few paragraphs about certain species scientists tried to revive and are considering.
This piece could be used in my essay to assist in the information on the environmental effects the bringing back of extinct species that may occur. I do not believe it would be of any other use other than the environmental ideas.
Shreeve, Jamie. “Species Revival: Should We Bring Back Extinct Animals? Scientists are debating whether to bring back vanished species” Nationalgeographic.com. National Geographic,
5 Mar. 2013. Web. 9 April 2014.
This online article Species Revival: Should We Bring Back Extinct Animals? Scientists are
debating whether to bring back vanished species was published by National Geographic in 2013 and written by Jamie Shreeve. The article tells of the different sides of the scientific debate dealing with riving extinct species. It includes the science and morals behind it.
The article gets new readers of the topic to know both sides of the debate and the reasoning behind each sides’ views. It is separated into sections that deal with different elements of the situation. The different sections provide an easy way to follow the situation’s many components. A couple photographs and two videos were included within the article to provide more information while not putting it all down in words. All these extra information visuals have a caption or summary to even further inform readers.
The ways I would incorporate this source will be to get the answers to the main questions presented on this subject. It also provides the morals of the science. It will assist me on giving a clear picture of the situation, for both sides, to those who read my essay.

Zimmer, Carl. “Bringing Them Back To Life: The revival of an extinct species is no longer a
Hart 6 fantasy. But is it a good idea?” Nationalgeographic.com. National Geographic, April
2013. Web. 9 April 2014.
The online article Bringing Them Back: The revival of an extinct species is no longer a fantasy.
But is it a good idea? was published by National Geographic in 2013. The article, by Zimmer, informs readers of the advancement of science on bringing extinct animals back to life.
Including some experiments that have already been put in action.
This article is an informative piece. Zimmer writes for readers who are looking into how the revival would occur. It could easily be dissected and parts could be used for arguments on the subject, Zimmer loses some credibility by not separating his article accordingly. It informs of the process and trials scientists have gone through to bring some extinct animals back. There are a few quotations; all have their own paragraph to separate the different ideas of the quoted and the writer of this article.
I will use this article to display the abilities our society holds on the paths of time. Along with examples of what scientists have tried and are trying to bring select extinct species back to this world.

Hart 7
Introduction
The human race has always been fascinated with the idea of having control over life and death. And now we have a key to the newly found door. Current technological advancements has the power to bring back extinct species if there is a sufficient amount of DNA of the species.
The whole genome may not be existent but thanks to “synthetic biology” there are precise genome-editing tools. (Brand)
Celia was the last wild goat known as Bucardo or Pyrenean ibex, indigenous to the
Pyrenees mountain range which divides France and Spain. Spanish and French scientists captured Celia, tagged her, and then released her. When they found Celia dead they extracted her cells and transported them into goat eggs that had been emptied of their own DNA; surrogate mothers then gave birth to these new Bucardo kids. They did fifty-seven implants, seven goats got pregnant and only one did not end in a miscarriage. The surviving kid died ten minutes after it came into this earth; no one knew why until after the autopsy. It died because one of the lungs developed an extra lobe, solid like a liver. This happened in the year 2003.
(Zimmer)
You may be thinking, so? Why should I care? Does this matter at all? Do you want me to do something? And the answer to those questions is the world would change dramatically.
Many new-old animals would be in zoos and back in the wild. Who knows what could happen to the environment in such a dramatic turn of events. Nothing would or could ever be truly dead ever again. What if humans let a species go extinct just to have the experience to bring it back to life once more? Nothing would ever be certain again. The planet would be in utter chaos with the power over life and death.

Hart 8
Summary
There is not a large variety of viewpoints on this current debate. There is, however, the pro side, the con side, the focused on endangered species side, and the side with the combined mix of both pro and con.
One of the most prominent voices promoting de-extinction is Stewart Brand (Pictured in
Fig. 1). Brand stated his opinion in his article “The Case for De-Extinction: Why We Should Bring
Back the Woolly Mammoth.” on the 13 th of January in 2014. Brand, along with his wife, Ryan
Phelan, created a non-profit organization called Revive & Restore with the mission to increase biodiversity by rescuing endangered and extinct species. He informs his intended audience, environmentalists, of the many positive benefits of deextinction. Brand points out that conservationists believe in a rich biodiversity, animals have ecological roles, people love them, and we need
Fig. 1 Stewart Brand, 2014. Business Insider.
to protect the endangered ecosystems.
To represent the con side of this debate is Tanya Lewis. On the 19 th of August in 2013 her article “Incredible Technology: How to Bring Extinct Animals back to Life” Lewis expressed her thoughts on de-extinction. She gave her opinion to animal loving scientists. One of her points against re-gaining species was if it would even work. She told of how passenger pigeons were highly social and quit breeding after there were about 1,000 birds left; we would have to

Hart 9 bring back thousands of pigeons for it to even have a chance. She also brought into consideration some of the dangers some of these animals, the mammoth in particular, could bring along with them. They may harm humans or maybe effect the ecosystem negatively. She focused on putting the possible conflicts de-extinction on the table.
PBS Newshour inserted another side to this story on April 22 nd , 2014. They released a video entitled “Should we bring extinct species back to life?” to inform the public of deextinction. Though not completely against de-extinction this news broadcast brings to light the fact that humans are the main cause of a majority of species extinction or endangerment. Due to climate change alone, if the temperatures keep climbing the world could lose up to half of its species. Multiple biologists feel that we should use the science of de-extinction to preserve endangered species instead of just bringing back already lost ones so these technologies should be used to assist in the preservation of species that are already on the planet. That should be the priority, not bringing back species that have already been gone for some time.
Then there are those whom have not or plainly cannot choose a side of the idea of deextinction, they feel that both pro and con have their own pros and cons. Kate Jones aids this side with her presentational webcast “Why and Why Not Is a Matter of Specifics” on April 15 th ,
2013. Jones shared her view on the idea of de-extinction with other biologists and zoologists.
She informed on ways that the synthetic biology should be used. She proposed that we choose which animals we bring back to this time on earth. She thinks that if we are to bring animals back that they should be: unique, animals that don’t have many close relatives, animals that have a chance at surviving in the wild, ones that humans do not have to be their source of survival, and ones that their original habitat still is in existence. We should limit the amount of

Hart 10 power we use on this de-extinction idea.
Source Analysis and Evaluation
In Stewart Brand’s journal article he appeals to the reader by creating an emotional connection by saying he and his wife co-founded a non-profit organization indicating that he is not in this for wealth. Emotion also reaches the reader when he used words like “rescue,”
“revive,” “protect,” “love,” and “restore.” This word choice makes him sound heroic. The other diction Brand used indicates that this process of bringing back extinct species is easy by including words like “no barrier” and “routine.” He reasons that the required biotechnology is advancing so rapidly that what one might believe or think impossible will become only expensive, only to then become routine all in a “couple of years.”
A tone of excitement is also created when Brand mentions that bringing back extinct species would be “pure thrill” and “momentous.” According to him we would no longer have
“constant whining” and “guilt-tripping.” It would now be a world of “high fives” and “new excitement.”
Nestled within all the emotional text Brand does provide some logical reasons to continue forward with de-extinction research. He explains the science that is behind our dwindling populations of endangered species. A lack of genetic diversity has led these small animal populations to no longer adapt and propel a healthy population forward. However, he quickly falls back into the ease at which this could all be accomplished.
Brand does little to establish himself as a credible source other than mentioning his involvement in his co-owned non-profit company, Revive & Restore. He fails to mention his

Hart 11 education or career background that would let the reader know he may be a credible source for information on de-extinction. He is able to improve this slightly by later mentioning that he and his wife were responsible for organizing a “public discourse” on de-extinction. He adds credibility by informing the reader that 25 scientists gathered at the National Geographic
Society in Washington, D.C. He stated that “debate” was encouraged. He also mentioned that this was a TED discussion which is known for its discussions on technology and education. Other than this, Brand does little to establish himself as a credible source.
Tanya Lewis, in contrast to Brand, used less emotion to educate her readers. However, in opposition to moving forward with de-extinction, she uses words like “challenges aren’t trifling” and pointing out the newly revived animals would have to “survive in the wild” and points out humans “burn forests” and “destroy” and “joke.”
Lewis mentions nothing of her credibility to inform us of her expertise on the subject.
She does provide information in her article from credible sources such as a conservation ecologist from Duke University, a Harvard biologist and a biologist from Rutgers.
This article is also short and concise. Lewis makes the subject relatable and more understandable to those without a degree in genetics by explaining breeding for certain traits as a “dog breeder” might do.
Unlike Brand, Lewis goes deeper into the possible complications and costs to deextinction encouraging the reader to see beyond the “hype” and “imagination” suggesting that people consider every aspect of reviving these extinct creatures. Rather than appealing primarily to emotions she challenges us to really think about the possible outcomes and the cost.

Hart 12
The PBS news report first appeals to the viewer by airing the story on Earth Day. Once again emotion is used in great abundance. The viewers are told we must “correct past mistakes” and “help.” These emotions are countered with words about de-extinction being referred to as “imaginations” and “fantasy.” We are “losing life,” “gaining it back,” and informed it is a “painstaking process” to fix it. Yet we should “live in tune with nature.” A clip of
Stewart Brand is played from his involvement in the TEDxDe-Extinction meeting. Brand asks the audience if they want to bring extinct species back and when no one responds he asks again and finally the viewer witnesses and round of applause. He tells us of “mistakes” and “crimes” we must “undo.” Then an opposing biologist uses words like “lost.”
The news story has credibility as it reports from both sides of the fence. Interviews are shown from leaders in both sides of the pro and con “camp” and the story begins with asking the viewer to consider the ethics of what has or might be done. Those interviewed, besides
Brand, are biologists working in academic settings with experience in endangered or extinct species.
There is a logical appeal to prioritize our potential abilities with de-extinction. The viewer is asked to consider the cost and to analyze attitudes suggesting that a higher priority should be placed on the animals that are barely surviving. To emphasize this situation viewers are shown two of the seven remaining Northern White Rhinos. They will no longer be able to reproduce. We visually observe the last of a dying species.
Kate Jones, in her webcast, immediately presents herself as a knowledgeable and credible source on de-extinction. She is a conservation biologist and has a PhD. Jones is chair of ecology and biodiversity at University College London and the Zoological Society of London.

Hart 13
Jones does use emotion but in a more positive way. Words like “engage,” “broad,”
“innovative,” and “solutions” were used to propel thought and options. More than emotion
Jones uses scientific data; specifically with graphs and pictures of current research.
Rather than promoting the choosing of “sides” Jones informs us that synthetic biology in de-extinction should be combined with conservation. This is going to happen whether we want it to or not, so Jones suggest that both sides should work together combining the aims of synthetic biology with the conservation community.
Brand uses the most emotion and the least logic. PBS asks that we prioritize using emotions and logic. Lewis primarily leans of credible sources and less emotion than Brand but provides only a small amount of information. Jones provides the most credible sources and information for an informed opinion.
Commentary
De-Extinction
When I began to research the abilities and ideas people had about bringing back to life extinct animals I was impressed by how much we can and/or have already have accomplished.
The more I dug into the minds of the people who are dealing with de-extinction the more I began to develop my own thoughts about the matter at hand. I did not understand the capabilities humans have in our hands and the massive amount of power we hold over life and death or the little intricacies in the science behind the ability to bring back the species of the past.

Hart 14
What is the science behind it? Frozen tissues containing DNA or sequencing of living genomes to recreate the whole genome can be used to bring extinct species back to life. Then DNA (illustrated in Fig. 2) is erased from its closest
Fig. 2 Extinct animals upon a DNA strand with the earth's continents in the background, 2014. Science Illustrated.
living relative and the new DNA is inserted. Then the viable egg is implanted in a surrogate to hopefully give birth to a healthy, formerly extinct species. What I found most interesting about the science behind de-extinction was how similar it is to what was pictured in “Jurassic Park” though we do not possess the power to bring dinosaurs back to life, even if we wanted to.
I have come to the conclusion that the idea of de-extinction is exciting but does not appeal to me very much. I would be absolutely terrified to see a herd of mammoths walk by, they could easily squash me. Tony Hart, whom I interviewed, agrees with this stance on the matter but differs in that he would be utterly thrilled to see mammoths, dodos, or even sabertooth tigers in person. I cannot disagree with Hart in that it would be pretty jaw-dropping to see such massive creatures from the past with my own eyes, even if they were to be enclosed.
As I tried to piece thoughts together in my head and my knowledge on this subject gradually increased I could not help but feel that the previously extinct animal may not be truly considered the same animals as their extinct species after it had been brought back to this time. For example, is a mammoth a mammoth if it was born by a modern day elephant or if it

Hart 15 only grows to be a third of the original size of a mammoth? Or would it just be a very fat, very hairy elephant? This thinking made finding a side to this discussion highly difficult. I have come to a conclusion, I do not think bringing back mammoths or saber-tooth tigers is what we should do with this power. We should use this technology to help in the preservation of today’s species that are struggling to stay afloat in a hurricane.
With this kind of power we need to sort out our priorities and decide on what we want to live among; previously extinct animals or the animals we have spent our time, money, and, some of us lives, to protect them from dying out and leaving this planet.
Conclusion
There has been an enormous amount of debate on this idea of de-extinction. The consensus is that no matter what some people believe somebody else is going to do this. There are people who feel they have to, because of this saying: “You will never know if you don’t try.”
The practice of de-extinction has occurred and will continue to occur.
The practice of de-extinction began in 2003 in Spain when scientists found Celia dead, the last Pyrenean ibex, so they tried to save her species after it had already gone extinct.
Although, it seems that half of the supporters of de-extinction want to use it to bring back species human have been the cause of their extinction; whilst the other half of the supporters feel we should use this power we have in our hands to bring back long extinct animals that we know little about. This seems like a fascinating idea to be able to study animals that generations upon generations have never seen living, but the dangers that accompany that plan are horrifying.

Hart 16
Because this is going to happen, we, as the human race, need to work together to decide on how and what is to be brought back to this time. Every voice needs to be heard on this matter and we should/need to try and logically think this through and try to accommodate every point of view on this potentially dramatic change on the planet we know and love.

Hart 17
Works Cited
Brand, Stewart. “The Case for De-Extinction: Why We Should Bring Back the Woolly
Mammoth.” Yale Environment 360. Yale Environment 360, 13 Jan. 2014. Web. 9 Apr.
2014. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_case_for_deextinction_why_we_should_bring_back_the_woolly_mammoth/2721/
Hart, Tony. Telephone interview. 14 May 2014.
Jones, Kate. “Why and Why Not Is a Matter of Specifics.” TEDxDeExtinction. TED. 29 Jan. 2013.
Web. 14 May 2014. http://tedxdeextinction.org/
Lewis, Tanya. “Incredible Technology: How to Bring Extinct Animals Back to Life.” Live Science.
Live Science, 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 9 Apr. 2014. http://www.livescience.com/38972-how-to-resurrect-extinct-animals.html
“Should we bring extinct species back to life?” PBS Newshour. PBS, 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 May
2014. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/daily_videos/should-we-bring-extinct-species-back-tolife/
Unknown. Unknown. 2014. Science Illustrated. Scienceillustrated.com. Web. 4 May 2014. http://scienceillustrated.com.au/blog/uncategorized/scientists-are-reviving-extinct-species/
Unknown. Stewart Brand. 2014. Business Insider Mag. Businessinsider.com. Web. 14 May 2014.

Hart 18 http://www.businessinsider.com/stewart-brand-discuss-de-extinction-at-ted-talk-2014-2014-3
Zimmer, Carl. “Bringing Them Back To Life: The revival of an extinct species is no longer a fantasy. But is it a good idea?” National Geographic. National Geographic, Apr. 2014.
Web. 9 Apr. 2014. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/125-species-revival/zimmer-text