Skip to main content
Advertisement
Main content starts here
No access
Policy Forum
Technology and Law

De-extinction, nomenclature, and the law

How we name resurrected species can have legal implications, particularly for conservation
Science
9 Jun 2017
Vol 356, Issue 6342
pp. 1016-1017

Abstract

The concept of de-extinction, aimed at restoration of extinct species, is controversial (1). Improvements in de-extinction techniques (back-breeding, cloning, and genomic engineering) now provide the opportunity to attempt to resurrect extinct species (2, 3). Up to 25 extinct animal species have been proposed as candidates for de-extinction (4) on the basis of their high public profiles, availability of well-preserved DNA, existence of closely related species who may serve as host or surrogate parents, and availability of suitable habitat in the case of planned reintroductions (1). From a legal point of view, it will be crucial to clarify how de-extinct species will be classified, in particular, in relation to their potential conservation status under national and international law. We discuss implications for conservation laws, which largely depend on nomenclature, and laws regarding the release of genetically engineered species, which do not, and argue for unique naming of de-extinct species.

Access the full article

View all access options to continue reading this article.

References and Notes

1
L. Evans Ogden, Bioscience 64, 469 (2014).
2
J. S. Sherkow, H. T. Greely, Science 340, 32 (2013).
3
B. Shapiro, Funct. Ecol. (2016). 10.1111/1365-2435.12705
4
P. J. Seddon, A. Moehrenschlager, J. Ewen, Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 140 (2014).
5
J. Folch et al., Theriogenology 71, 1026 (2009).
6
E. Yong, Resurrecting the extinct frog with a stomach for a womb [blog] (National Geographic, 2013); http://bit.ly/2q8PhenomNatGeo.
7
SSC of the IUCN, Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct Species for Conservation Benefit (IUCN SSC, Gland, Switzerland, 2016); https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/Rep-2016-009.pdf.
8
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, ed. 4, 1999).
9
P. Zieliński et al., Mol. Ecol. 22, 1884 (2013).
10
J. R. Bennett et al., Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0053 (2017).
11
N. F. Carlin et al., Stanford Environ. Law J. 33, 3 (2014).
12
M. Park, thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN (2014); www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=etd.

(0)eLetters

eLetters is a forum for ongoing peer review. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed, but they are screened. eLetters should provide substantive and scholarly commentary on the article. Neither embedded figures nor equations with special characters can be submitted, and we discourage the use of figures and equations within eLetters in general. If a figure or equation is essential, please include within the text of the eLetter a link to the figure, equation, or full text with special characters at a public repository with versioning, such as Zenodo. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting an eLetter.

Log In to Submit a Response

No eLetters have been published for this article yet.

ScienceAdviser

Get Science’s award-winning newsletter with the latest news, commentary, and research, free to your inbox daily.