Teaching de-extinction: Are we living in the next 'Jurassic Park' sequel?
Imagine traveling to a tropical island for a once-in-a-lifetime safari that promises “an adventure 65 million years in the making.” Sounds amazing, right? Well, maybe if you were living in the late 1980s before the world was introduced to Michael Crichton’s novel Jurassic Park and the subsequent movie franchise. When the movie came out in 1993, viewers reflected on how cool—and terrifying—it would be to see a real dinosaur.
Today, the movie franchise is doing great, with what feels like the billionth adaptation or sequel hitting theaters just a few months ago. Thirty-two years after the original release, the basic premise of the Jurassic Park story line hasn’t really changed much—and it remains firmly in the realm of science fiction. Right?
Hold on one second while I take a big gulp of coffee and open the news…
You’ve probably read about “de-extinction” in the news or you’ve seen the click-bait in your social feed. Your students probably have too, and it’s a topic that’s likely to fascinate them. Some de-extinction articles focus on the negative aspects, others on the positive or sensational elements, and a few weigh the pros and cons. So, how can we—and our students—navigate the varied sources and commentary? Most of these articles have an agenda, but we want students to make up their own minds about de-extinction. Are we altering nature for the better? Or will these technologies make planet Earth an even hotter mess by creating a real-life version of John Hammond’s Jurassic Park?
What are the pros and cons of de-extinction?
First, let’s investigate the arguments for and against de-extinction. Proponents of de-extinction argue that restoring extinct animals to habitats will help support biodiversity, reintroduce lost functions in ecosystems, and deter climate change through things like grazing patterns and forest regeneration. One way to ensure that the reintroduction of extinct species will thrive in our current ecosystem and have a minimal impact on existing species is to use AI predictive modeling to “forecast movement patterns, habitat use, and species interactions.”[1] Sounds great on paper, but we all know that computer modeling and large language models aren’t perfect (just ask anyone trying to predict the path of a hurricane or a teacher grading a student essay written by ChatGPT). Some supporters also point out that since humans are in large part responsible for many species’ extinction, they should be the ones to fix the issue. Many of the extinctions in the last 250,000 years have been the result of a combination of human activities—overhunting, clearing land for development, the development of monocultures after the Agricultural Revolution and Columbian Exchange—and climate change (and, of course, climate change itself is in large part the result of human activity). We should, therefore, use human ingenuity and new technologies to counteract these impacts by rescuing extinct species and increasing genetic diversity.
Opponents—many of whom are conservationists—counter these pro de-extinction arguments by saying that we should focus on preserving the species currently on Earth. Wealthy individuals have poured billions of dollars into companies focusing on de-extinction. People opposed to these efforts suggest that existing conservation efforts are losing out on contributions because donors are lured by the flashy new science of de-extinction rather than focusing on what we know will help vulnerable species, such as reducing emissions from fossil-fuel use and getting rid of invasive species.
There are, however, efforts underway to restore animals that are on the verge of extinction. An international group of researchers including those from BioRescue and the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research have built upon the work done by the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance and the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics to help save the critically endangered northern white rhinoceros. There are currently only two northern white rhinos left in the world and both animals are female. The last male died in 2018, leaving the females without a natural way to reproduce. However, using the successful mapping of the genome of the northern white rhino done by the Max Planck Institute, BioRescue and Colossal scientists are using the genome along with many of the same techniques utilized to bring extinct species back to life to try and save the northern white rhino from extinction. If successful, this would be an example of de-extinction in its truest sense.
How do we help students evaluate de-extinction debates?
De-extinction is an engaging and relevant topic that provides ample opportunity for critical thinking and debate in the classroom. Yet, evaluating de-extinction can be difficult for students given the sensationalism in the media combined with the scientific complexity of genome sequencing, CRISPR technology, and differing opinions about whether this technology will help or harm conservation efforts. Making sense of the news stories and journal articles will require finely tuned claim-testing skills. Students might make use of another slightly controversial technology and ask their favorite AI agent to summarize the latest research.
You could also have students debate the pros and cons of de-extinction by reading a short story and completing the Big History De-Extinction Debate activity. Alternatively, students can debate whether they see a difference between ecological de-extinction and biological de-extinction. The de-extinction of animals tends to generate the most media buzz, but scientists and conservationists also introduce existing species into habitats once occupied by extinct species to rebuild or resurrect those ecosystems. While the goals of biological and ecological de-extinction are similar—to restore extinct or threatened species to aid conservation efforts—people tend to view ecological de-extinction more favorably than its biological counterpart. Students can explore how or why their argument might change if they think about bringing back the woolly mammoth versus resurrecting a forest or swamp. Once students have explored the different sides of the de-extinction debate, they’ll be able to decide for themselves if they are living in the next Jurassic Park sequel.
If you would like to learn more about de-extinction, register for the free OER Project event—“De-Extinction: Are Extinct Species History?”—on October 16, with Dr. Beth Shapiro, Chief Science Officer at Colossal Biosciences.
1. A Stephen D. Turner, Anna Keyte, Andrew Pask, and Beth Shapiro. De-Extinction Technology and Its Application to Conservation. Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Genetic Association, 2025, p. 9.