Business
Bringing Back the Extinct: The High Stakes Economics of De-Extinction
From woolly mammoths to dire wolves, scientists are getting closer to reviving extinct species. But as de-extinction moves from sci-fi to science labs, the real question is: what does it cost — and who pays the price?
In what sounds like a scene from Jurassic Park, biotech labs around the world are racing to bring extinct animals back to life — not in theory, but in practice. At the center of this movement is the concept of de-extinction, where genetic engineering is used to recreate species that disappeared from the planet centuries or even millennia ago.
Recently, researchers successfully created genetically modified wolf pups with DNA remarkably close to that of the long-extinct dire wolf — a prehistoric predator last seen over 10,000 years ago. This scientific feat is part of a much larger ambition to revive species like the woolly mammoth and the dodo, with hopes of reintroducing them into the wild.
But beyond the thrill of discovery lies a tough question: Can we afford to bring back the past?
The economics of de-extinction are complex. Creating and raising a genetically engineered animal isn’t cheap — the research, cloning, surrogacy, habitat preparation, and post-birth care can cost millions. While venture capital is flowing into biotech firms promising to resurrect the ancient, critics question whether this funding could be better spent protecting endangered species that are still alive — and in desperate need of conservation.
There are ethical dilemmas, too. The animals involved in surrogacy, the potential suffering of engineered species, and the risk of ecological imbalance all present moral gray areas. And what happens when an extinct species is reintroduced into an ecosystem that no longer resembles the one it once knew?
Then comes the business model. If de-extinction becomes a commercial service — part conservation, part spectacle — will it be driven by scientific integrity or by market demand? Will we have de-extinct animals housed in wildlife parks and exhibitions rather than roaming the wild?
Supporters argue that de-extinction could help restore lost biodiversity and even combat climate change, by rebalancing disrupted ecosystems. Critics warn it’s an expensive distraction from saving the living world.
In the end, de-extinction may be less about resurrection and more about reflection — a mirror held up to our choices as stewards of this planet. The science is catching up to imagination. Whether society is ready — financially, ethically, and environmentally — is still an open question.