Less than a year ago, the US company Colossal Biosciences announced with great media fanfare that it had brought the so-called dire wolf (Aenocyon dirus), which went extinct around 13,000 years ago, back to life. The same is said to become possible in the future for other iconic extinct and exterminated species: mammoth, South Island giant moa, thylacine, dodo—they are all supposed to return.
Many people are fascinated by this idea and see new opportunities for nature and wildlife conservation. Others, however, warn of a dangerous side effect: if species become seemingly “restorable”, this could weaken efforts to protect them. But is this concern justified?
A new study in the journal Biological Conservation has examined this question systematically for the first time—with a nuanced result: de-extinction does not automatically lead to indifference towards species extinction. At the same time, the data indicate a serious risk.
The moral-hazard hypothesis
The term “moral hazard” originally comes from insurance economics and describes situations in which people behave more riskily when they feel protected against possible consequences. In environmental ethics, this concept has been applied to technological solutions for years, for example in connection with geoengineering or de-extinction.
Applied to conservation, the hypothesis is: if extinct species can be brought back, their loss appears less final and therefore less serious. It was precisely this finality that has so far been a central argument for consistent protection.
Study design & key finding
To test this assumption, the researchers conducted an online experiment with 363 participants from the USA. Respondents came from different age groups, social backgrounds and political orientations.
All participants were presented with a realistic scenario in which a large infrastructure project promised economic benefits but would also have led to the extinction of a threatened species. Examples were the critically endangered Mississippi gopher frog (Lithobates sevosus) and the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), which occurs exclusively in a small area of the San Francisco Bay Area.
The scenarios came in two versions: either the species loss was to be offset through traditional nature conservation, or through later genetic restoration. Each person saw only one version and then rated various statements about the moral acceptability of the project.
In the de-extinction scenarios, participants were also asked whether they believed that genetic methods would actually be able to successfully restore an extinct species.
Using these two highly threatened species, the study examined whether the prospect of de-extinction produces a moral-hazard effect—that is, whether it changes the acceptability of their extinction.
(© Frog: Peter Paplanus from St. Louis, Missouri, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons / Mouse: Rachel Tertes/USFWS, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)
No free pass for extinction
The study’s key result is clear: the mere prospect of de-extinction did not make extinction more acceptable.
There were no significant differences between the groups with conservation offsets and those with resurrection promises. In both cases, many respondents rejected species loss. The widespread fear that de-extinction automatically acts as a moral free pass cannot be confirmed empirically.
A sobering finding
Regardless of the technology, however, another problem emerged: between 20 and 40% of respondents considered extinction justified if the project in question promised high economic or societal benefits. This applied to very different ventures, such as the construction of ports, transport routes, AI data centres or water-treatment plants.
For many people, infrastructure development carried more weight than preserving individual species. This attitude persisted both under traditional ecological compensation and under genetic revival. In these cases, the loss of biodiversity was seen as an acceptable price.
This makes it clear that the real problem runs deeper than individual technologies. In large parts of society, economic benefit still carries more weight than protecting threatened species.
When technology downplays extinction
Beyond respondents’ general attitudes, the researchers identified another association. What mattered was not the existence of de-extinction technology as such, but belief in its success.
The more strongly participants were convinced that de-extinction could work, the more likely they were to consider extinction justified. They more often rated the projects as acceptable, judged the responsible companies less critically and were also more open to further environmentally harmful ventures.
Among respondents who did not believe in successful de-extinction, only around 17% considered extinction justified. Among those convinced of technical feasibility, this share was over 50%. Belief in a later “rescue from the lab” thus tripled the willingness to accept species losses.
From an environmental-ethical perspective, this development is problematic. It resembles the moral-hazard effect from the world of insurance: those who feel insured act more carelessly. In conservation, this “false sense of security” can lead to risks being accepted more readily.
Justification or cause?
The researchers cannot determine whether faith in technology justifies existing attitudes or creates new ones. Both are possible: some people accept extinction in principle and use de-extinction for moral relief. Others may only become more accepting through technological optimism. In both cases, there is a risk that responsibility will be shifted gradually.
Communicating de-extinction honestly
Against this backdrop, the authors of the study assign central importance to public communication. In reality, today’s de-extinction projects cannot fully bring back extinct species. In most cases, they produce genetically modified relatives or ecological proxy forms.
Public appearances and ambitious announcements significantly shape how de-extinction is perceived by the public.
(© Duk3L1xon, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
When companies or research institutions nevertheless speak of “resurrection” or a “return of extinct species”, a distorted picture emerges. The technology appears more powerful, more reliable and more comprehensive than it really is.
The dire wolf example shows this: only 20 genes were altered in grey wolves. That is a far cry from truly restoring an extinct species. Yet media reports and cover images suggested a “return from extinction”.
Such exaggerations reinforce the impression that extinction is reversible—and therefore less dramatic. The study therefore explicitly warns against overblown promises. Only a consistent, transparent portrayal of actual possibilities and limits can prevent de-extinction from unintentionally contributing to the relativisation of species extinction.
Other de-extinction projects show that honest communication is possible. In this context, the researchers point to the Dutch Tauros programme, which aims to approximate the extinct aurochs. Through targeted breeding of still-existing aurochs traits from different cattle breeds, a new breeding line is created. This population is deliberately referred to as “Aurochs 2.0”. In its public presentation, the focus is not on the alleged revival of an extinct species, but on the development of an ecological proxy organism intended to help restore ecosystems.
Rescue from the lab?
The researchers do not reject de-extinction in principle. Used appropriately, it can safeguard genetic diversity and support threatened populations. It becomes problematic where it is understood as a substitute for traditional nature conservation.
At the same time, the study makes clear that de-extinction cannot compensate for fundamental ecological losses. It cannot replace habitats, reconstruct food chains or restore complex ecosystems. It remains a technical substitute for something that has been lost.
Prevention therefore remains crucial. A stable, self-sustaining population is always more valuable than even the most elaborately produced copy from the lab. As long as habitats are destroyed and protective measures are neglected, any technological solution remains insufficient.
The study shows: de-extinction does not automatically undermine conservation. It is not a free pass for destruction. It becomes dangerous only when it is linked to exaggerated technological optimism and misleading communication. As a complement it can be useful—as a substitute, it cannot.
As long as extinct species appear as “repairable damage”, a dangerous shift of responsibility threatens. The most effective protection therefore remains: not letting species go extinct in the first place.
Sources
- Lean, C. H., Latham, A. J., Sandrussi, A., & Rogers, W. A. (2026). De-extinction and the risk of moral hazard. Biological Conservation, 313, 111637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111637
- Lean, C. H., Latham, A. J., Sandrussi, A., & Rogers, W. A. (2026, 1 February). Some companies claim they can ‘resurrect’ species. Does that make people more comfortable with extinction? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/some-companies-claim-they-can-resurrect-species-does-that-make-people-more-comfortable-with-extinction-273583
About the author: Doreen Fräßdorf
Doreen Fräßdorf is the author and publisher of artensterben.de. She researches and writes about extinct and endangered species in the modern era, with a focus on red lists, scientific studies, historical sources, and current conservation efforts. The goal is a clear, evidence-based overview of biodiversity loss and species protection.
She is also the author of a non-fiction book about extinct modern-era mammals.
Support this blog
If you enjoyed this post, I would appreciate a small donation. This keeps artensterben.de ad-free and without paywalls, so all readers have free access to the content.
Alternatively, you can support my work by buying my book or via my Amazon wishlist.
Thank you!
