View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Springer - Publisher Connector Cottrelletal.LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicy 2014, 10:3 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/3 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Resuscitation and resurrection: The ethics of cloning cheetahs, mammoths, and Neanderthals Sariah Cottrell, Jamie L Jensen and Steven L Peck* *Correspondence: Abstract [email protected] BrighamYoungUniversity, Recent events and advancesaddress the possibility of cloning endangered and 155WIDB,Provo,UT,USA extinct species. The ethics ofthesetypes of cloning have special considerations, uniquely different from thetypes of cloning commonly practiced. Cloning of cheetahs(and other endangered or vulnerablespecies) may be ethically appropriate, given certain constraints.However, the ethics ofcloningextinct species varies; for example,cloning mammoths and Neanderthals is more ethically problematic than conservationcloning, and requires more attention. Cloning Neanderthals inparticular is likely unethical and such a project should not be undertaken. It is importantto discussand plan for theconstraints necessary to mitigatethe harms of conservation and extinct cloning, and it is imperative thatscientific and public discourse enlighten and guide actions in the sphere of cloning. Keywords:Extinct; Endangered; Conservation;Ethics;Utilitarianism; Somatic cell nuclear transfer Main text Since the birth of Dolly the sheep in 1996 (Wilmut et al. 1997), ‘cloning’ animals generally means cloning via somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). SCNT follows specific steps for cloning: an egg cell is prepared by having its nucleus removed; an adult (or somatic) cell has its nucleus removed; this nucleus is inserted into the prepared egg, which is then stimulated with an electrical shock inducing egg cell division. This embryo is implanted into the uterus of a surrogate mother, which if it takes, is later successfully born. The surrogate mother acts as a natural mother would during pregnancy, once the embryo implants into her uterus. The resulting individual, orclone,hasnuclearDNAidenticaltothedonorofthesomaticcell.Overthedecades, cloning has made stunning progress (See Figure 1), with cloned dogs and cats commercially available and livestock regularly cloned (Panarace 2007). Cloning is very expensive: the cost just to preserve tissue from a dog or a cat for future cloning is about $1,000 USD per year (Shiels 2004), while the cost of having a dog or cat cloned ranges from $32,000 to over $100,000, averaging at around $50,000 (Boyce 2006; News 2004; Flock 2012). Cloning livestock is less expensive, with a cloned cow costing at least$15,000andapigcosting $4,000(Plume2009). Cloningisnotequally ethically appropriateforallspecies,sothequestion ofwhether we should try to clone for conservation or resurrection becomes complicated when applied to individual species. There are numerous concerns about cloning and how to ©2014Cottrelletal.;licenseeSpringer.ThisisanopenaccessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommons AttributionLicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,andreproductioninany medium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited. Cottrelletal.LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicy 2014, 10:3 Page2of17 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/3 Figure1TimelineofSpeciesClonedandCloningTechnology. apply it. All of these applications of cloning were unthinkable before Dolly, but have since become common realities. Cloning has generated much ethical discussion in applications for animals and humans alike, with implications ranging from concerns Cottrelletal.LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicy 2014, 10:3 Page3of17 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/3 about a violation of animal welfare (Fiester 2005) to human safety (Lane 2006) and the ramificationsof ‘playing God’(Chadwick 1982). AftercloningDolly, hercreatorswrote: We were notthinkingabout…creatinghillock upon hillock ofidenticalsheep to guarantee agoodnight’ssleep.We were notthinkingabouthelpinglesbiansto reproduce without thehelp ofa spermbank ofmultiplyingmovie stars.We were certainlynot thinkingofduplicating dictators.(Wilmut andHighfield 2006) ThosewhoclonedDollyforesawneitherthefuturetheyenabled,noritsethicalimplica- tions, and it is important to continue to examine these ethics. Before embarking on any cloning exercise, there are a number of ethical issues that ought to be considered: Why clone this species or individualand not others?What is the cost, and who should pay it? What will happen to the clone and its potential progeny? Under what circumstances is this a technology humans should use? There are many positive and negative effects cloning could have on individuals, populations, and ecosystems. There are many reasons that would seem to compel us to use cloning technology, yet this must be done, if at all, with careful attention to ethical consideration, including motivations behind cloning. SinceDolly,humanshavemovedfromthepositionofcloningbeingimpossibletoaworld of possibilities with new perspectives and motivations. For example, cloning pets can provide emotional mollification for some owners, and livestock clones can ensure financialandagriculturalsuccesstoothers;however,therearesomecloningendeavorson thehorizonthatwillhavefar-reachingconsequences.Hereweexploretheimplicationsof oneofthese:canweusecloningtosaveendangeredspeciesorresurrectextinctones? Cloning for conservation purposesmay bethe next stepofcloningtechnology (Ryder and Benirschke 1997), and restoring extinct species may soon follow. Recent events (TEDx 2013; RT 2013; Gross 2013) and publications (Zimmer 2013a) have drawn attention to the realistic possibilities of cloning extinct species. These types of cloning have the potential to have a greater effect than changing the lives of pet owners or the livestock industry; it could change the course of natural history on our planet. In the face of today’s ecological crises, could we use cloning to reduce or reverse the impact we’vehadonourworld? Suchquestions needcareful attention. There are special concerns when cloning is applied to endangered and extinct species. There are a number of ways ethical theory can be used to explore this type of cloning. Here we will consider only two, deontological and utilitarian ethics, which represent two main branches of ethical theory. Other ethical viewpoints could be considered, such as animalrightsarguments,narrativeethics, orevolutionaryethicsthatwouldbringtolight other validandlegitimateconcernsandapproaches.Whilethese viewsareimportant,we willrestrictourselvestothetwoaforementionedmainviewsinthispaper.Usingdeonto- logical and utilitarian perspectives, we will examine the special considerations and ethics ofcloningforconservationandcloningextinctorganisms. First, we will discuss the cheetah, an endearing and threatened species, as a specific case of conservation cloning. Second, to examine cloning extinct species, we will con- sider the cloning of woolly mammoths, commonly discussed and charismatic animals in conversations about extinct cloning. Finally, we will consider cloning Neanderthals. This closely related species has only recently become a candidate for cloning, although ithasreceived relatively littlediscussioninbioethicalliterature. Cottrelletal.LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicy 2014, 10:3 Page4of17 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/3 Cloning for conservation: cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) Much discussion has centered on the use of cloning as a tool to alleviate the current massive rate of mammalian extinction (Ehrenfeld 2006; Pina-Aguilar et al. 2009; Ryder and Benirschke 1997; Lee 2001; Ryder 2002). The concept of cloning endangered species is not new, but it is less common than cloning livestock or domestic animals. This type of cloning has the potential to have long-lasting and far-reaching effects if applied to endangered species, and could change much about conservation. Cheetahs are an especially interesting species to consider because they are a popular and threatened mammal with an unusual evolutionary bottleneck that has severely restricted their genetic diversity. This provides a basis for our thoughts on conser- vation cloning. Specialconsiderations Conservation cloning has two special considerations: assessing which species to clone and how to address potential animal rights. Cloning via SCNT at this time is largely restricted to mammals. We are limited in our current cloning capabilities, and the long wait may be longer for whatever additional threatened species man wants to clone, particularly if that species is a bird or reptile. One species may be more imminently threatenedthananother,butitdoesn’tnecessarilymean they willgetpriority: Cloningisexpensive–onlycharismaticanimals arelikelytobe cloned….True, cheaper,easier,andmore efficient cloning techniquesarebeingdeveloped, but the cloningofendangeredrays,caecilians,or vipers mayhavetowait untilwehave donetheshowier rarebirdsandmammals.(Ehrenfeld2006) This is troubling for conservation efforts that would focus on species and ecosystems of all types. However, this reflects reality; charismatic animals are likely to receive first attention and larger funding than less popular species. Cloning a species for the first time is more expensive than an established cloning technique for an animal, and so the cost to clone a cheetah could easily reach $100,000 USD and probably much more. Subsequent clones will become cheaper, but the price will remain high for some time. To theextentthatthese costsremainhigh, cloninganewanimalwillbeexpensive, and the reality discussed above is one in which the charm of the animal and not the threat of the species will dictate which species are addressed and when. Cheetahs, being a large member of the cat family, represent a species with a great deal of appeal and thus make aninterestingcasestudy. Positiveethicalaspectsofcloningcheetahs In justifying a decision to clone cheetahs, a Kantian (or deontological) view finds pur- chase for the cloning of endangered animals, be they charming or otherwise, through our sense of duty to values of stewardship and care for our planet and its inhabitants., This includes duties that demand we treat animals with kindness, which allows us to expressmoral responsibility towardsanimals and reflectsanddevelopshumane feelings towards our own and other species. Kantian ethics may also imply indirect duties toward animals such as ameliorating humanity’s impact on the environment. Cloning cheetahscould beusedasaway tofulfill thisdutytothenaturalworld. Cottrelletal.LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicy 2014, 10:3 Page5of17 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/3 However, a utilitarian perspective may provide additional or alternative warrant. Cloning cheetahs could achieve societal and environmental benefits for many species. Societal benefits such as increased endangered species awareness and international cooperation are valuable, and the benefits of research necessary to clone this species are especially advantageous. Research gained in cloning a cheetah would assist in furthering cloning technology and, if it incorporates artificial genetic manipulation in an attempt to expand genetic variation in cheetah populations, it would advance gene therapy technologies, benefitting humans and other species. Cloning cheetahs could contribute to the overall eventual human wellbeing in addition to accruing conserva- tion benefits. The environmental effects of cloning cheetahs are also advantageous. Cloning may increase habitat conservation, as both donors and the public would be interested in providing adequate habitat for cloned animals. Increased habitat conservation will, in turn, serve a greater good by benefitting naturally-born cheetahs and other species within their habitats. The role of predators is important to ecosystem dynamics, and preservingcheetahskeepstheecosystembalanced(Lima1998)andwhole-habitatbene- fitscouldberealized. Cloning cheetahs not only benefits their habitats, but also affects the cheetahs themselves by expanding knowledge of their genetics and husbandry. The restricted gene pool of cheetahs is the result of a bottleneck event about 12,000 BP (Culver et al. 2010). Cheetah ranges and numbers have dwindled significantly in the last century (Durant et al. 2010). It is possible that humans, through genetic therapy and manipula- tion, may provide additional genetic variation in cheetah populations. The future of cheetah populations may depend on their genetic variability enabling them to better survive current selective pressures (Durant et al. 2010), and the long-term benefits of improved genetics in this already genetically restricted species may lead to healthier cheetah populations (Ryder and Benirschke 1997). Cloning cheetahs in conjunction with genetic manipulation would benefit both cheetahs and future species for which this technology might be employed. Cloning cheetahs could provide a great deal of goodfor agreat number ofspecies,includingourown. Negativeethicalaspectsofcloningcheetahs Cloning cheetahs does not address the problems leading to their extinction (e.g. habitat loss, hunting) (Jabr 2013), so we cannot, in any practical sense, make it a universal maxim to clone all endangered or vulnerable species. Society is unlikely to provide resources to universalize this, and it may be irresponsible to create such a maxim. Of course, this does not forbid the cloning of cheetahs; it simply denies this as an ethical obligation. Utilitarian drawbacks of cloning cheetahs include laws, costs, and resourceallocation. Cloning is expensive, and exploring geneticmanipulations for cloned cheetahs is costly. Another significant expensive may be the cost to individual cheetahs themselves. Cheetahs are protected ([CITES] 2012), and while cheetahs would be ideal donors (Ehrenfeld 2006), it may be counter-productive to use cheetahs as donors or surrogates for the clones. It has often taken hundreds of embryos and attempted pregnancies to produce viable clones (Jabr 2013), so this requires many eggs from donors and great risk to surrogate mothers. The death or serious injury of a surrogate is an unacceptable Cottrelletal.LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicy 2014, 10:3 Page6of17 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/3 biological cost; the cost of many individuals to achieve even one viable clone outweighs the benefits of that clone. The use of an interspecies surrogate transfers this cost to another organism but does not eliminate this cost (Poland and Bishop 2002). Finally, clones introduced into the wild may constitute a biological cost on wild coalitions (a group of cheetahs), or possibly on the clone itself in the wild. Paying these costs can only be justified if the benefits outweigh those costs. Anotherconsiderationwouldbethepotentialreallocationofresources.Itispossiblethat cloning cheetahs would siphon funds that would otherwise have helped habitat preserva- tion.TheCheetahConservationFundoperatesonanannualbudgetofaround$1.8million (personalcommunicationwithB.Fellenstein,CheetahConservationFund,May2013).To lose money from this budget would seriously affect the organization’s contributions to preservation. Assisted reproduction and other efforts are more effective for conservation than cloning (Pina-Aguilar et al. 2009; Ryder and Benirschke 1997), and the money spent inassistedreproductionismorelikelytoresultinincreasedcheetahpopulationsthanclon- ing.Thismisplacedinvestmentincloningisfrustratingtoconservationists;however,there is no reason to assume that money donated to cloning cheetahs would otherwise have gone to conservation (Lee 2001). Since cloning does not necessarily remove money from otherfunds,itisonlyunethicalinthissenseifitdetractsfromconservationefforts. Conclusiononcloningcheetahs Cloning cheetahs is only unethical if its costs outweigh the benefits. Cloning a cheetah has considerable potential benefits to the preservation of a large number of species. If prudent conservationists realized even some of these benefits, then cloning a cheetah is an ethically admirable practice. In order for the cloning of cheetahs to retain its ethical value, however, it must avoid the potential costs described and it must not eliminate, replace,orreverse theoverallgoalsofconservation. Extinct cloning: woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) ‘If you want to bring a species back to life, the mammoth would be almost as dramatic as a dinosaur’ (Nicholls 2008). Cloning extinct species would be a dramatic event as it brings back into existence something thought to be permanently lost. It presents different ethical considerations than cloning domestic or endangered species. Consider the cloning ofawooly mammoth. Mammoth remains have been found in the frozen North (Mueller 2009), theoretically preservingDNAandthusmakingcloningmammothsapossibility.Despitethealternative of creating mammoth-elephant hybrids (Lister and Bahn 2007; Stone 1999, 2002), this sectionfocusesspecificallyontheethicsofcloningmammoths(seeFigure2,Information drawn from Lister, Adrian, and Paul Bahn. 2007. Mammoths: Giants of the Ice Age. Berkeley,CA:UniveristyofCaliforniaPress:22-23).Afterexaminingaproblemuniqueto cloninganyextinctspecies,wewillexploretheethicalfactorsofcloningmammoths. Specialconsiderations One ethical concern about cloning mammoths stems from general anti-cloning arguments, amplified when applied to extinct species. It starts with the argument that cloning is ‘playing God’and is intrinsically therefore wrong. It is unclear what is meant by ‘playing God’ and why exactly that is inherently wrong (for further reading on the Cottrelletal.LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicy 2014, 10:3 Page7of17 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/3 Figure2WoollyMammothFacts. ‘playing God’argument, see (Van Den Belt 2009) and (Chadwick 1982)). Closely related to the ‘playing God’ argument is the ‘unnatural’ argument, which follows a similar pattern: that which is unnatural, is wrong; and natural is considered a nonnegotiable intrinsic value. Ruth Chadwickargued: Whatisclaimedwhen anything isobjectedtoonthegroundthatitis‘unnatural’is farfrom clear,anditisnoclearer inthe caseofcloningthan anything else. Itisnot thatcloningdoesnotoccur ‘innature’…thepointisratherthatcloningisunnatural forthe species.(Chadwick1982) Despite the tenuousness of these arguments, they nonetheless carry intuitive appeal. Any opposition to cloning on the grounds that this sort of reproduction is ‘unnatural’ for the species is multiplied in the cloning of mammoths. Mammoths are extinct and do not currently exist on the earth; it is unnatural for them to be reproducing at all, much less via cloning. This is true regardless of what led to their extinction. Any living aspect of amammoth isunnatural.However, theunnatural andplayingGodarguments have not prevented the cloning of extant animals, and it is unlikely that these alone would provide moral forcethatwould forbid the cloning ofmammoths. Positiveethicalaspectsofcloningmammoths Several perspectives support the ethical appropriateness of cloning mammoths. First there is a deontological consideration based on the possibility that humans contributed Cottrelletal.LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicy 2014, 10:3 Page8of17 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/3 tomammothextinction(Nogués-bravoetal.2008;Thomas2012).EthicistHankGreely (2013) recently asked,‘If we killed them and now we have the ability to bring them back, do we have a duty to bring them back? Do we owe it to them?’ Is restoring a species that humans eliminated from the earth part of our mandate to ‘keep’ the earth as it was? If true, as de-extinction advocate Mike Archer suggests (Woodford 2000), there may be deontological reasons that support cloning mammoths if humans drove them to extinction. This duty, however, seems vague and unjustified. Humans already failed the mandate to preserve the species; does restoring them eliminate that failure? Theimplicationwould reston the assumptionthat current humans are accountablefor the actions of a few humans in the distant past. If humans hunted mammoths to extinction,itwaslikelyahunting-to-eatratherthanahunting-for-sport scenario,where killing mammoths kept our species alive, and it can be argued that we had a higher duty to our own species than another. Assigning human culpability to the status of a duty to humans not involved is problematic, so it cannot obligate us to clone mammoths. Furthermore, it is not certain that humans alone are responsible for the extinctionofmammoths. Cloning mammoths seems best considered under a utilitarian umbrella: the potential scientific progress and other benefits from cloning mammoths are numerous. Cloning mammoths would allow us to assess (to some extent) their life history and biology (Loi et al. 2011), possibly illuminating proboscidean evolution (Proboscidea is the order containing elephants and several extinct families including mammoths and mastodons), and could improve biotechnology in ways that will be applicable to multiple species, including humans. The monetary benefits alone are hefty: profits for researchers and laboratories; the worth of the mammoths and their offspring; money for zoos or institutions housing or working with mammoths; and most importantly, the possibility of considerable private funding. A resurrection project like this has great allure, and with private donations would not require or detract from government supported funds. The potential benefits of cloning a mammoth make it a very attractive project. A final utilitarian consideration is Bentham’s (1891) idea of providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number broadly construed. There is certainly a great deal of happiness available through cloning mammoths. For example, if the clones were kept in zoos rather than in the wild, it would minimize problems stemming from damaged ecosystems or species, and so maximize public enjoyment of the public viewing the mammoth. Cloned mammoths also provide fulfillment for creators, satisfaction for project donors, and enjoyment for those benefiting from any resulting tourism. Some of this will be true if the clones are reintroduced into the wild, but there are significant advantages in keeping the mammoth in a zoo, where the happiness of the clone itself is equal to or greater than other zoo animals–donors and researchers did not spend time and money only to let the clone languish in an ill-funded or inhumane zoo. Happiness from cloning mammoths,asautilitarian measureofgreater good, isabundant. Negativeethicalaspectsofcloningmammoths Many ethical arguments against cloning mammoths are rooted in either the same utilitarian or deontological views that promote it. Deontology based considerations are problematicbecauseofthedifficultyinuniversalizingthistypeofproject.Firstformost Cottrelletal.LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicy 2014, 10:3 Page9of17 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/3 extinct species it cannot be done because, (a) we do not have the ability (given the 521 year half-life ofDNA, it isimpossible to resurrect species thathavebeen dead for more than a few million years [see (Allentoft 2012)]), nor can we reasonably know of all species that are extinct, or even all those that humans have driven to extinction, and (b) using resources to universally restore extinct species conflicts with other duties to our own species. Arguably, our highest duty is first to humans, and then to animals. Kant, for example, supports humane behavior towards animals as a reflection of our humanity (Kant c. 1790), but cloning mammoths themselves is not particularly reflect- ive of our duties towards humanity, as this involves animals that are not currently in existence, perhaps dispensing with any obligations owed them. Furthermore, if the clones are destined for zoos or laboratories, then this is using them as a means and thus problematic. There is therefore no obligation for us to clone mammoths because it is too vaguely defined; however, it is not deontologically unethical to clone mammoths;itissimplynot endorsed. In light of this failure to satisfy deontological requirements, let us consider the utilitarian implications of cloning mammoths and the accompanying harms: societal harm, biological costs, and harm to the environment. First, let us consider the societal harms. Mammoths require laboratory support to bring them into existence. Cloning a mammoth will be very expensive, much more than cloning cheetahs. Similar to the cheetah scenario, it would be unethical to displace funds destined for other conserva- tion causes to clone mammoths. Cloning mammoths may lead to other societal costs as well. Consider, for instance, the potential court battles (ownership, animal rights, moneyspent andearned intheproject,etc.). Further consider the societal and monetary costs of creating and enforcing mammoth conservation laws. Once a mammoth is cloned, it will be the only one of its kind to become an endangered species immediately at birth, and legally will qualify for those protections allocated to other endangered species. We would be creating an endangered species from one that is not currently endangered (nor currently living), and we would needtoprotectandpreserveit.Justasthe clonedcheetahsinthewildmaymeritgreater protection than their naturally-born counterparts, cloned mammoths in the wild may receive more protection than other extant species indigenous to the cloned mammoth’s environment. This is partly due to the fact that a small population or even just one mammoth is in more danger of extinction than are endangered elephants, and their endangeredstatusismoreseverebecausetherewillbefewerofthemlivingthanthereare elephants.Itisunacceptableforthemoralstatusofa speciesthatdoesnotcurrentlyexist toexceed themoralstatusof animals thatdoexist.Legislationwill havetobeenactedto cover this case, and the legal ramifications could be immense. It is more important to conserve extant and endangered species than it is to clone extinct ones (Pina-Aguilar et al. 2009). If knowing that we can clone extinct species reduces society’s incentive to preservelivingandendangeredspecies,thenthatmakesitethicallyproblematic. The cost of cloning mammoths affects surrogates, donors, and the clones themselves. The ideal surrogate and egg donor for mammoths is the Asian (also called Indian) elephant (Nicholls 2008), which is an endangered species. The endangered status of Asian elephants makes it ‘completely unethical to use these animals for cloning a mammoth’ (Pina-Aguilar et al. 2009). The cost on the elephants is too great; the individual elephants could develop ovarian tumors or be otherwise harmed through Cottrelletal.LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicy 2014, 10:3 Page10of17 http://www.lsspjournal.com/content/10/1/3 harvesting eggs or through the surrogate process, where mammoth fetuses may be unsuited to the uterus of the elephant (Nicholls 2008) and may do her harm. The potentialdeathorharmtotheelephantsistoogreatacost.Thisisproblematicbecause Asian elephants are used as beasts of burden (History 2009), which is tolerated. If cloning is allowed, why not use elephants as mammoth surrogates? If humans desire to conserve elephants, perhaps these current practices ought to be reconsidered. (Aside: one difference between the two scenarios is the benefit to human livelihood from elephants as beasts of burden, which may outweigh the cost; but human life is not benefited through using elephants as surrogates for clones). There are many other costs to the cloned mammoths themselves. Mammoths are believed to have been social creatures (Lister and Bahn 2007), and living in isolation would reduce the quality of a mammoth’s life, necessitating multiple costly mammoth clones, at least until breeding colonies could be established, preferably of different genomes to allow for reproductive success and to minimize inbreeding. Furthermore, suppose the clones will be unable to survive our current climate and climate change, as is possible since climate was a factor in mammoth extinction (Thomas 2012; Nogués-bravo et al. 2008)? Add to this the potential difficulties seen in many clones (ex: congenital defects, abnormal development, reduced immunity, or vul- nerability to aging or disease; see (Poland and Bishop 2002; Wells 2005; Cibelli et al. 2002)) which may be greater for extinct species with less-intact DNA. These biological and economic costs suggest cloning mammoths may not be ethical until these issues are addressed and technology has developed sufficiently to minimize them. In the utilitarian goal to minimize pain and maximize happiness, much must be done to mitigate the costs of cloning mammoths. The potential environmental harms of cloning mammoths are uncertain but have serious and long-term implications. If mammoths are reintroduced into the wild, the habitat needs to withstand this. If the habitat intended to hold reintroduced wild mammothswould not support them,then it isnot ethical towasteresourcesincloning mammoths only to have them go extinct. Moreover, what of the habitat’s ability to survive the mammoths? The habitat in which mammoths once lived does not exist. Reintroducing mammoths to the wild will not reestablish their former ecosystem (Rees 2001); the clones will have to forge a new one. Asian elephants already have a rocky relationship with humans due to depleted habitat, and they regularly kill humans and raid crops (Jadhav and Barua 2012). Might not cloned mammoths have similarly negative effects? Woolly mammoths were massive creatures that ate about 181 kg (400 lbs) of grass and sedge a day (Lister and Bahn 2007). Can the ecosystem that will house wild mammoths spare 181 kg of grass per mammoth per day? Mammoths may also take a large toll on ecosystems through competition or changingecosystemdynamics,andcouldcausetheextinctionorthreatofotherspeciesin theareasinwhichtheyareintroduced.Ifaclonedmammothwouldcausetheextinction of another species, then cloning mammoths would be unethical and counter-productive forspeciesconservation.Theextantspeciesmusthavemoralpriority. Conclusiononcloningmammoths Many effects of cloning mammoths are merely hypothetical, so where does our moral responsibility lie? On one hand, the potential harms and their long-term effects seem