Posted 10 Sep
Isabella Candeloro 
MOD.’s recent Ethos Event begs the million-dollar question – does history belong in museums, or in our backyards?
The year is 2027. You are on a mission to the original Jurassic Park research facility to retrieve dinosaur DNA for a life-saving drug. Amidst this operation, a failed dinosaur mutant escapes, killing innocent civilians and changing life as we know it today. This is the rough plot line of Jurassic World: Rebirth (2025). The scariest part? Companies like Colossal Biosciences are investing in reviving species that have disappeared from Earth. They seek to turn what once belonged on the big screen into a scientific possibility that brings the past oh-so-very back into our present.
Professor Chris Daniels, Associate Professor Jeremy Austin and Associate Professor Alexandra Whittaker explored these stories and contentious issues over a plethora of charcuterie items at the 4 September 2025 Ethos Event at MOD., entitled ‘De-Extinction – What could go wrong?’. Comedian Jason Chong facilitated the evening, and captured audience views on whether we should hedge our bets on an all-too-immersive Jurassic Park experience coming to a backyard near us.
Animals are complex. Panellists argued that bringing back an animal thousands of years post-extinction without understanding its behavioural needs risks creating creatures destined for suffering – confined in zoos, subject to experiments, or unable to thrive in the wild – and they forced the audience to question whether the pursuit of scientific knowledge justifies condemning animals to pain, isolation, or ecological mismatch.
Think raising children is hard? Well, Professor Daniels reckons that raising wombats and other non-human species are arguably harder – let alone species that haven’t been around for centuries. Wombat babies are really risky, bouncy, and… well… they bite. Wombat mothers smack them about so that they learn what is right and wrong from a young age. But, naturally, humans cannot smack wombats.
So, if we were to raise them, by the age of 2, these wombats would be fighting, aggressive, and utterly out-of-control. The point here, is that we don’t even know how to deal with species that are already endangered, let alone playing around with a species that may or may not be some sort of half-baked chimera (‘chimera’: an animal possessing at least two distinct sets of DNA), if we created it all and it is still not the original species.
Professor Daniels also used birds as an example – some species teach their song and inform their chicks about who they are before they are even born. So, if we just have an egg and don’t have an adult bird, the baby chick is not learning who their friends and enemies are, among many other intrinsic factors.
This shows we know too little about these species’ behaviours and communication to justify mimicking them.
The issues in de-extinction surrounding laws, rights, and ethics are as clear as day. Colossal Biosciences focuses on de-extincting animals like the woolly mammoth, dodo, and Tasmanian tiger.
Dr Whittaker, the panel’s ethics and law-go-to, highlighted the various red flags of Colossal Biosciences. Their reliance on media announcements, rather than scientific publications, reiterates that without ethical oversight, such projects which surround de-extinction risk prioritising spectacle over science, and marketability over responsibility.
But this raises a big question of justice: if we bring these animals back to the present day, who benefits and who bears the risks?Take the proposed de-extinction of the dodo to Mauritius for example – who owns it? The scientists? The government? The local community? Ethical de-extinction must grapple not with just animals and environments, but with human communities, laws, and cultural rights.
One Ethos participant even brought the plot of Jurassic World back into the discussion, and posed the following question – if the plot of Jurassic World and the ideas presented in the movie are based on genuine scientific attempts at de-extinction, do movie creators owe a duty of care to companies attempting to mimic theories presented in the movie in their own labs? And if a somewhat successful attempt at de-extinction does occur, who does the Intellectual Property behind that creation become granted to? Would it be said Jurassic World creators?
Midway through the evening, Chong asked participants—after engaging the Ethos panellists—to gauge how society views de-extinction. Each table of participants was provided with a mascot of an oh-so-very-cute extinct animal that Colossal Biosciences wishes to revive and discuss pros and cons accordingly.
General discussion discovered that the ecological stakes of de-extinction are equally fraught. De-extinct species might fill lost ecological niches, but they could also destabilise current systems. One group of participants proposed reviving the river sea star, and experts praised it for its potential to combat South Australia’s current algal bloom disaster. Why? Because scientists believed the river sea star fed on algae and small particles.
Yet the panel quickly raised questions like – could such a creature outcompete native species? What if it shifted with climate change and disrupted ecosystems instead of restoring them?
Other Ethos participant groups struggled to see the benefits in bringing back large-and-in-charge animals like mammoths – which Associate Professor Austin concurred with in short and sweet words – “what is the purpose?”
Yes, bringing back speculative and charismatic animals like mammals might dazzle the eyes – but at what cost? Ethos panellists and participants made clear that de-extinction is not morally defensible when it gambles with ecosystems for speculative gains, particularly when conserving endangered species promises more certain benefits.
So, it seems that a cure for algal bloom is unlikely the river sea star… for now…
Motivation for de-extinction extends beyond science, Associate Professor Austin stressed. Some projects are framed as moral reparation for past extinctions. Ethos Panellists agreed that there is societal and cultural guilt that surrounds extinction that has occurred as a result of human interference.
Professor Austin used the thylacine, the great auk, as an example. He posed the idea that the guilt of extinction, and the possibility of using de-extinction to bring back the thylacine feels like atonement. This begs the question of whether this is a valid ethical justification, or that focusing on saving existing endangered species is more urgent and effective.
Funding complicates the picture further. Paris Hilton and Chris Hemsworth are supposedly funding Colossal Biosciences to bring back the thylacine (aka Tasmanian tiger). Although comical to read (and comical amongst Ethos participants when discussed), the point is serious: marketability and spectacle shape what species attract attention.
Professor Daniels reiterated that de-extinction companies always prioritise ‘characteristic’ animals like mammoths, thylacines, and dodos, and rarely market the revival of smaller or ‘ugly’ species.
This bias is ethically troubling – conservation should not be determined by popularity contests.
Ultimately, all these debates underpin a central (and deeper) philosophical concern – just because we can, does it mean we should? What we are really creating are chimeras. We’re not resurrecting species as they were; we’re inventing something new.
Public perception, however, may not recognise this nuance. The idea of “bringing back the mammoth” or “reviving the thylacine” captures imaginations but risks misleading people about the nature of the science and the ethical stakes.
The ethics of de-extinction remind us that our responsibility lies not only in what we can create, but in what we choose to protect. Reviving the past may be scientifically thrilling, but safeguarding the present – and ensuring a liveable future – may be the more urgent ethical task.
One thing is for certain. De-extinction risks becoming less about a mammoth comeback, and more about a colossal distraction from protecting the life we already have.
Want to delve deeper?
Ethos is made possible with funding through the Deputy Vice Chancellor of Research and Enterprise. We hold Ethos events regularly at MOD., you can find more details here.
Author: Isabella Candeloro was the rapporteur for this event and is a Moderator at MOD.