Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40982394›Full record

ArticleEcology letters2025

De-Extinction at a Crossroads: Ecology, Ethics, and the Future of Conservation in the Biotech Age.

Bruno Paganeli, Mauro Galetti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bruno PaganeliCBioClima-Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8660-0511
Mauro GalettiCBioClima-Center for Research on Biodiversity Dynamics and Climate Change, Department of Biodiversity, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2021/10639-5Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2024/22997-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent announcement of a genetically engineered organism resembling the extinct dire wolf (Aenocyon dirus) has reignited a media and academic debate over the ecological, ethical, and philosophical implications of de-extinction. Although the revival was later clarified to be a modified grey wolf with a small fraction of the dire wolf DNA, the case illustrates how close biotechnology is to achieving a true de-extinction. While proponents promote such techniques as innovative additional tools for conservation, this paper calls for a more critical examination of their broader implications. Drawing on insights from invasion ecology, rewilding, ethics, and governance, we argue that de-extinction must not be guided by feasibility or commercial appeal alone. Instead, it requires a multidisciplinary framework to be thoroughly understood, responsibly guided, and-if deemed appropriate-accepted. As biotechnological innovations advance and may become widely used, they should be aligned with biodiversity conservation principles to avoid unintended ecological consequences.

Indexed as

BiotechnologyConservation of Natural ResourcesEcologyExtinction, BiologicalOrganisms, Genetically ModifiedWolvesAnimalsBiodiversitybioengineeringbiological invasionconservation ethicsDe‐extinctiondire wolfrevival

Identifiers

PMID40982394
PMCPMC12453136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.