ReviewGenes2018
De-Extinction.
Review in Genes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolving conservation: The role of unconventional approaches to restore contemporary vertebrate populations and genomic biodiversity.The Journal of heredity · 2026Review
- De-extinction technology and its application to conservation.The Journal of heredity · 2026Review
- Rewilding: history, intervention and the quest for immanence.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2026Article
- Emerging trends in genome editing of wild animals.Transgenic research · 2026Review
- Deconstructing empirical fitness seascapes across scales of granularity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The role of emerging assisted reproductive technologies in the conservation of neotropical wild mammals - challenges, advances and perspectives.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2026Review
- De-extinction: how reviving the past is revolutionizing the future of conservation biology.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2026Review
- A Genomic Exploration of the Possible De-Extirpation of the Zanzibar Leopard.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Molecular Paleontology Meets Drug Discovery: The Case for De-extinct Antimicrobials.ACS omega · 2025Review
- Should scientists be allowed to bring distant human ancestors back to life?PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Reviving the Dire Wolf? A Case Study in Welfare Ethics, Legal Gaps, and Ontological Ambiguity.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Uncooling the planet: Rewilding for function in a post-Pleistocene climate.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2025Review
- Pangenome graphs and their applications in biodiversity genomics.Nature genetics · 2025Review
- Conservation Mitonuclear Replacement: Facilitated mitochondrial adaptation for a changing world.Evolutionary applications · 2024Article
- Manipulating Time by Cryopreservation: Designing an Environmental Future by Maintaining a Portal to the Past.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024Article
- Philosophy and ethics of de-extinction.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2023Review
- A Study Evaluating Consumer Motivations, Perceptions, and Responses to Direct-to-Consumer Canine Genetic Test Results.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- The importance of genomic variation for biodiversity, ecosystems and people.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2021Review
- Building genomes to understand biology.Nature communications · 2020Review
- Conservation Genetics and Genomics.Genes · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
De-extinction projects for species such as the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon have greatly stimulated public and scientific interest, producing a large body of literature and much debate. To date, there has been little consistency in descriptions of de-extinction technologies and purposes. In 2016, a special committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published a set of guidelines for de-extinction practice, establishing the first detailed description of de-extinction; yet incoherencies in published literature persist. There are even several problems with the IUCN definition. Here I present a comprehensive definition of de-extinction practice and rationale that expounds and reconciles the biological and ecological inconsistencies in the IUCN definition. This new definition brings together the practices of reintroduction and ecological replacement with de-extinction efforts that employ breeding strategies to recover unique extinct phenotypes into a single "de-extinction" discipline. An accurate understanding of de-extinction and biotechnology segregates the restoration of certain species into a new classification of endangerment, removing them from the purview of de-extinction and into the arena of species' recovery. I term these species as "evolutionarily torpid species"; a term to apply to species falsely considered extinct, which in fact persist in the form of cryopreserved tissues and cultured cells. For the first time in published literature, all currently active de-extinction breeding programs are reviewed and their progress presented. Lastly, I review and scrutinize various topics pertaining to de-extinction in light of the growing body of peer-reviewed literature published since de-extinction breeding programs gained public attention in 2013.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.