The Jurassic Park movies have drifted from science fiction toward fantasy (they are arguably the best franchise about fantastic beasts) but they began with a basis in fact: scientists really are looking for ways to bring extinct species back to life.

• DEFINITION: De-extinction is the process by which species and organisms that were once extinct are created, typically through cloning. It is also called resurrection biology or species revivalism.
• BENEFITS: Some scientists believe studying previously extinct animals and looking at how they function could help fill some gaps in our current theories around evolution.
  • De-extinction could also have a beneficial impact on the environment. That’s because when an animal goes extinct, its absence has a ripple effect on all the flora and fauna involved in that animal’s food web.
  • Because of this, reintroducing previously extinct species back into their old ecosystems could help rebalance and restore off-kilter environments.
• 3 MAIN TECHNIQUES:
  1. Cloning: This is the only way to create an exact DNA replica of something. However, a complete genome is needed for this, so this form of genetic rescue is most effective with recently-lost species, or species that are nearing extinction.
  2. Genome Editing: The manipulation of DNA to mimic extinct DNA. There are several ways to do this, but in general, the process involves researchers manipulating the genomes of living species to make a new species that closely resembles an extinct one. Because it’s not an exact copy of the extinct species’ DNA, this method will create a hybrid species that only resembles the extinct animal.
  3. Back-Breeding: A form of breeding where a distinguishing trait from an extinct species (a horn or a color pattern) is bred back into living populations. This requires the trait to still exist in some frequency in similar species, and the trait is selectively bred back into popularity. Like genome editing, this method does not resurrect an extinct species, but resurrects the DNA and genetic diversity that gave the extinct species a distinguishing trait.
• IS IT WORTH IT?: Research on the economics of de-extinction found that the money would go farther if it was invested into conservation programs for living species—approximately two to eight times more species could be saved if invested in existing conversation programs. TLDR; No.

AI may be an important new tool in making it possible. Critics contend that it will probably never happen and that we should focus our resources on preserving the species we have left. Explore de-extinction efforts and methods related to the animals listed below, then discuss with your team: if it were possible, what species would you want to bring back first? Are there any that we should leave in the grave (or below the K-T boundary) forever?

• 1ST LINK: TLDR; just more context about de-extinction and its development over the decades with regards to biological and technological developments.
• 2ND LINK: Gilbert thinks creating an exact replica of a mammoth or a passenger pigeon will be “impossible.” Herridge cautions that, in most cases, scientists won’t know in advance how the edited genes will affect the animal’s behavior and ability to survive. “Even if we got it genetically perfect, we are still going to have to gestate it in a different species, so why would you think it would be exactly the same?” Wendling adds. McCauley and others also think de-extinction efforts may take needed resources away from conservation. “You can save eight extant species for [the cost of] one that you make de-extinct,” Wendling points out.

American chestnut | Wooly mammoth | Pyrenean ibex

• American chestnut- the tree's demise started with something called ink disease  in the early 1800s, which steadily killed chestnut in the southern portion of its range. The final blow happened at the turn of the 20th century when a disease called chestnut blight swept through Eastern forests. Despite its demise as a lumber and nut crop species, the American chestnut is not extinct. The blight cannot kill the underground root system as the pathogen is unable to compete with soil microorganisms.
• Wooly mammoth- the long-dead woolly mammoth will make its return from extinction by 2027, says Colossal, the biotech company actively working to reincarnate the ancient beast. Last year, the Dallas-based firm scored an additional $60 million in funding to continue the, well, mammoth gene-editing work it started in 2021.
• Pyrenean ibex- the Pyrenean ibex became extinct in January of 2000, when a falling tree landed on the last surviving member of the species. Three and a half years later, the Pyrenean ibex became extinct for the second time, when a newborn clone gasped her first and last breaths in a Spanish laboratory.

Passenger pigeon | Moa | Dragon | Dodo

• Passenger pigeon- about September 1, 1914, the last known passenger pigeon, a female named Martha, died at the Cincinnati Zoo. She was roughly 29 years old, with a palsy that made her tremble. Not once in her life had she laid a fertile egg. The Great Passenger Pigeon Comeback began in 2012 with a central paradigm: de-extinction needed a model candidate. The goal of de-extinction for us, quite literally, is revive and restore, and so the pilot project needed to be one that would have a chance of successfully returning the species to the wild.
• Moa- habitat loss and impacts associated with introduced species further helped to seal their doom. Gone for well over 700 years, moa appears to be on a path to de-extinction. That is because scientists have just assembled the first nuclear genome for an extinct moa species: the little bush moa (Anomalopteryx didiformis).
• Dragon- Scientists at the Uedineniya Polar Station have unearthed the frozen remains of ancient dragon nests in the Arctic circle. Found in an area where the average temperature for the warmest month of the year is below 50°F, the fossilized remains of dragon eggs were well-preserved at very low temperatures, and scientists believe that some of the eggs may be viable. They theorize that they can resurrect Draconus arcticus by using fossilized sperm to inseminate the eggs and bring dragon species back from extinction. (this is actually insane pls -rana)
• Dodo- the dodo de-extinction project is only now possible due to the dodo genome having been sequenced for the first time by a team at the University of California in 2022. Colossal plans to integrate the dodo genome into the genome of the Nicobar pigeon. Once, dodos were denizens of the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, but human explorers and their introduced animals hunted them to extinction by the end of the 17th century. Now, Colossal claims it can bring back the large flightless bird by editing the genomes of its living relatives

Not all efforts to restore extinct species involve locating old DNA fragments and stitching them back together—for instance, one de-extinction project in Europe is selectively "back breeding" very burly cows to recreate a wild "supercow", the auroch, that hunters drove into extinction in the 1600s. If they succeed in spawning new aurochs just like those in cave art and the fossil record, would we consider them no longer extinct? Should efforts be made to back-breed tiny horses, or giant flightless birds, or Neanderthals?

• BACK BREEDING: aims to concentrate ancestral traits that persist within a population into a single individual using selective breeding. In back-breeding, ancestral phenotypes may be resurrected after many generations, but the genes that underlie these phenotypes may differ from those that were present in the extinct species. Back-breeding is the term used to describe the use of selective breeding to resurrect specific ancestral traits within populations of living organisms. (linked to an academic journal, feel free to read, but tbh, I think it requires some kinda higher bio knowledge to rlly understand. -rana)
• “SUPERCOW”: Ronald Goderie is a cattle breeder trained in ecology working to reintroduce aurochs to the Côa Valley. The problem is that the aurochs, Bos primigenius, has been extinct since 1627. To revive the aurochs, he’s collaborating with geneticists at Wageningen University and ecologists at a non-governmental organization called Rewilding Europe. Together they’re “back-breeding” modern cattle to take on aurochs-like traits — like menacing horns and stripes along their backs — and then introducing herds of these doppelganger herbivores into landscapes where aurochs once roamed. The spread of agriculture foreclosed the natural habitat of aurochs, which once covered most of Europe, Asia, and northern Africa. By the early 17th century, the final holdouts survived in the Jaktorów Forest of Poland, protected by noblemen who also liked to hunt them. The death of the last aurochs in 1627 was also the world’s first recorded extinction. (I’d recommend learning where Côa Valley is located on a map, I have a feeling they're gonna end up asking it as a bowl question. -rana)

They wouldn't be considered extinct, but could also possibly be considered endangered, in a way, because I highly doubt they could produce a whole population of aurochs to survive. But also, it feels weird calling aurochs “extinct” because they are, essentially, humans and we have evolved from them (I won’t go on a tangent to spare y’all the existential crisis LMAO -rana). Although I am a bio student and nerd, I’d rather focus efforts on ensuring the current animals that we have on earth don’t go extinct.

Even if we can't resurrect them, we do have a better sense now of what Neanderthals looked like. Research how we are now able to envision the "Old Man" of Shanidar, then discuss with your team: why should we spend so much time on a species that went extinct so long ago? Is it because some Neanderthal genes can still be found in modern populations, especially in Europe and Asia? Would there be value in creating a living history museum with robot Neanderthals, or with people who dress up like them—or who choose plastic surgery to look the part?

• “OLD MAN” OF SHANIDAR: When the first Neandertal bones were discovered in Germany in 1856, it was assumed that these thick-boned, heavy-browed hominins were more apelike than modern humans, lacking our cognitive abilities and unable to develop what might be thought of as culture. At the burial site at Shanidar, however, Solecki’s intensive study of the skeletal remains revealed signs of social relationships and ritual, exposing a cultural complexity previously thought to belong only to modern humans. After being treated for his injuries, he must have been cared for by his community and provided with food and shelter despite being physically and sensory disabled. This required a social structure that was not previously thought to exist in Neandertal society. (I suggest going through the website, super interesting and includes lots of visual aids. -rana)

Spending so much time on a species that went extinct a few millennia ago can be answered by sheer human curiosity and the need to know and understand how humans and life evolved. History museums that have humanoid wax figurines of Neanderthals are enough for the general public to understand the origin of species (yes I made a bio joke -rana), but also having people dress up as Neanderthals can be beneficial and interactive for teaching children about history. Also, people who choose plastic surgery to look like Neanderthals are stupid.

• Sometimes resurrections are just metaphorical. The new leader of the Democratic Party in the United States Congress, Hakeem Jeffries, recently gave a stirring political speech; many listeners dubbed him "the next Obama". He was not the first such. Liz Truss was briefly the next Thatcher, except for some business with a head of lettuce. If you Google "the next Google", you'll find endless results, none of which ended up the next Google; it's your turn now, ChatGPT. The late basketball star Kobe Bryant was supposed to be the next Michael Jordan; so was Lebron James—or was Lebron James the next Kobe Bryant? As it turns out, there were multiple next Michael Jordans; most ended up like these next Peles. Discuss with your team: why is society constantly on the lookout for new versions of old people and old things?

  • HAKEEM JEFFRIES: first African-American to lead a party in the history of Congress  and he is already getting calls to run for the next president of the United States, all thanks to a riveting, almost rap-like speech that he delivered to the newly-seated House of Representatives. “We do extend our hand of partnership to you and want to make clear that we extend and intend to try to find common ground whenever and wherever possible on behalf of the American people,” Jeffries said to applause. “Not as Democrats, not as Republicans, not as independents, but as Americans. But I also want to make clear that we will never compromise our principles.”
  • “THE NEXT OBAMA”: (taken from the CNN article) Joe Biden is – by far – the candidate with the clearest claim to the Obama mantle. He was the president’s number two, stood by him for eight years, and mentions him often on the campaign trail, regularly using what the duo accomplished in office as a way to explain why voters should back him in 2020. If Biden is the candidate most closely tied to Obama, Deval Patrick is the newly minted candidate most similar to the former President. Patrick’s first campaign for governor in 2006 was helmed by political consultants David Axelrod and David Plouffe, who would later go on to work for Obama, and Patrick’s slogan – “Together We Can” – was seen as a precursor to Obama’s hopeful message in 2008. Where Biden and Patrick have actual ties to Obama, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg appears to be the candidate that voters most often compare to the former President. The mayor, at 37 years old, is young, offers a historic candidacy, and running against the standard politics, three things Obama had over his opponents in 2008. Buttigieg’s campaign has leaned into the Obama comparisons, and his supporters often draw those parallels.
  • LIZ TRUSS: (brief context: this was around the time when Boris Johnson resigned as UK prime minister and before they announced that Rishi Sunak is the new PM.) The favorite to become the next prime minister has already drawn the ire of unions because of her labor market reform proposals. The choice is now between Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor, and Liz Truss, who has served in various cabinet positions and is currently the foreign secretary. Like Thatcher in 1979, Truss is claiming that Britain is in decline and that she is the answer. She has scapegoated global conditions, including the covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as well as domestic opponents. Yet while Thatcher spun a dominant narrative of decline that resonated with the public and enabled her to prescribe a path to renewal, Truss’s speech rang hollow.
  • CHATGPT: With or without AI, Google can very well stay the go-to place for information that is one-level deep. After all, that’s how it has designed itself: To keep searchers glued to the search results page. However, Google must rework its revenue model. The hen that laid the golden eggs has been killed: The days of exploiting personalized data for serving ads are past their prime. Chat GPT is highly promising. But it is compute-intensive, and hence, highly costly. Its capacity would be limited by the pace of hardware evolution. Unless Microsoft gives it a cash lease on Bing / MS apps, mass adoption is unlikely. And perhaps, uneconomical, too. Most users don’t search beyond the first level. TLDR; ChatGPT works the same way as Google basically, you ask the AI any question and it will answer you (to its capacity). Chat GPT opens up the possibility of gaining knowledge through the most ancient technique of knowledge acquisition: Iterative questions and answers.
  • “THE NEXT MICHAEL JACKSON”: Grant Hill; ****On a Friday the 13th back in December 1991, Virginia Daily Press columnist David Teel wrote that Hill may eventually become Duke’s best player. Teel also quoted St. John’s head coach Lou Carnesecca as saying Hill could be “the next Michael Jordan or Julius Erving.” And so it began. LeBron James; LeBron’s first national crowning as the next Jordan came in a 2002 Sports Illustrated cover story that hailed him as “the Chosen One.” But LeBron was already being linked to Jordan in local newspaper articles all way back in February 2001, when he was just 16 years old. (there are so many people they mentioned in that article wtf so I’d recommend scrolling through it. -rana)
  • “THE NEW PELES”: Again, I would just recommend scrolling through the article briefly bc my brain just shuts down every time sports are mentioned I fear (rana).

  There are most likely psychological reasonings to why society is constantly on the lookout for new versions of old people and old things, but in terms of finding new versions of old people, it may be equated to nostalgia and the feeling of familiarity; society knows that these people in the past were good at what they did, so they also end up liking and comparing a different person in the present who has similar qualities as those people because they believe that they will be “just as good.”

If you want a selfie with the Pope, you can wait in line at the Vatican and then not get a selfie with the Pope, or you can pay $25 to visit the Dreamland Wax Museum in Boston. Discuss with your team: what makes wax museums different than traditional sculpture collections? Would they still be considered museums if they featured statues of past celebrities and historical figures slightly modified from their real-life versions—say, Mother Theresa with wings, or Joseph Harr with hair—or of people who never really existed, like George Santos and Sherlock Holmes?

• Wax museums often include modern celebrities, which the general public loves because they are great photo opportunities, but also wax sculptures are “more realistic” compared to traditional sculptures and often have a wider variety. They would be considered novelty museums instead of history museums, which are strictly required to only include historical artifacts and factual pieces of evidence.

If you want to talk with the Pope—any past pope—you can skip the wax museum in favor of the nearest Internet connection; the ChatGPT-like service Character.AI allows you to chat with historical figures. It's okay if they're dead. Explore the service to assess the value of conversing with these simulated personalities online. Should celebrities and other figures need to agree to have their "chat voices" outlive them—or do they surrender that right the moment they enter the public eye? Do the dead have any ownership over their voices, or can someone speak for them—and, if the latter, would it be better to ask permission from their descendants, or from the simulation of them? And should people have access to chatbot simulations, built from texts, emails, journals, TikToks, and other records, of their own deceased loved ones? Discuss with your team: what could possibly go wrong—and what could possibly go right?

• CHARACTER.AI: Founded by former Google researchers Daniel De Freitas and Noam Shazeer, Character.AI – in a similar fashion to ChatGPT – pulls from articles, news stories, books, and other digital sources to generate plausible responses from individuals (or characters) of your choosing.
• THE JESSICA SIMULATION: TLDR; a guy made an AI chatbot based on his dead girlfriend. (this story is absolutely insane but also so interesting, I really recommend reading the article. -rana)

(the questions they asked are very interesting but also very convoluted so I'm just gonna let yall think about it deeply or debate it with your teammates/delegation LMAO -rana)