In David Shultz's article “Should we bring extinct species back from the dead? » he explains how scientists now have the ability to potentially make animals such as the woolly mammoth and the passenger pigeon disappear. This article describes the three main ways in which de-extinction can take place and why it is essential that scientists employ these processes. This article adopts a tone of optimism and urgency while not really considering the possible negative consequences or moral objections associated with implementing de-extinction methods. In Shlomo Cohen's “The Ethics of Deextinction,” a more critical framework is proposed for examining whether deextinction is necessary in the case of each particular species. Cohen argues that we should criticize the need for de-extinction based on five criteria: "the possible contribution of de-extinction to the promotion of ecological values, the deontological argument that we owe de-extinction to the species we have made extinct, the question of "playing 'God' through de-extinction, the utilitarian perspective, and the role of aesthetic considerations in the ethics of de-extinction" (Cohen 1). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay When it comes to the field of biological sciences, it is important to evaluate de-extinction based on testable criteria. Leaving aside Cohen's important philosophical questions, two valid questions remain. What is the use and what is the ecological impact? David Shultz's article answers these questions. The utility of de-extinction, from a human perspective, is scientific progress. Currently, the three most promising methods for resurrecting these animals are breeding and cloning. and genetic engineering. The latter method is used in groups of mammoths and homing pigeons. Scientists use the CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) method to extract specific traits from extinct species and implant them into a modern replacement (Shultz). For example, the gene that makes mammoths hairy could be implanted into the DNA of an Asian elephant. If scientists are allowed to continue these practices on extinct creatures, they may one day be able to use them to improve human health. Perhaps the genes that increase the risk of breast cancer could be modified. The possibilities are endless. Opportunities for scientific advancement meet Cohen's criteria by clearly demonstrating a utilitarian purpose for continued de-extinction efforts. Cohen argues that for deextinction to be ethical, it must promote ecological values ​​(Cohen 1). Shultz offers many of the positive ecological effects that deextinction can have. After the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon were removed from their ecosystems, these environments were negatively altered. When mammoths pooped and trampled the tundra, it helped spread seeds and maintain grasslands. Homing pigeons had highly flammable droppings that caused wildfires, a healthy natural disturbance to forests. Pigeons were also the primary method used by white oaks to disperse their seeds (Shultz). The return of these two species would make it possible to restore Arctic grasslands and replenish forests. This would be ecologically valuable. In conclusion, comparing the information given in David Shultz's article with.