Hello everyone!
As we are all aspiring specialists in our fields of science,
I decided to choose an article which is a totally different cup of tea to me
and to majority of you. I have recently encountered some interesting articles
on BBC and NY Times with regards to potential mammoth revival. They encouraged
me to do some reading with regards to this topic and so I found the articles
that I share with you today. I hope you will find them interesting . Please do
share your opinion with me when it comes to the articles and the questions
provided below.
1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing
with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
2. If people start to
revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas?
Please support your choice with opinion.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on
conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead
to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteObviously new discoveries are very important in general. Modifying genomes seems like a huge steps, but those extinct species are extinct for some reason. As we know mammoths were very dangerous for population, so why would you bring them to life? Despite from extinct species are we going to bring to life also people who died? For me this is messing up with nature.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
Honestly I hope they will not be brought to life, simply because it is dangerous, secondly as I mentioned above this does not make sense. For the clarification - we live in completely different environment then even few decades ago, not even saying about centuries. Species become extinct because of changes in pollution, environment, because of hunters and other changes. Instead we should think more about what we do to environment, because that is the main reason why wilderness will not exists.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
I think that it will only cause some genetic mess. The risk is of course ethical and what is more problematic such studies might be used for bad causes. It is like trying to mix different species and this is not good at all.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
Yes that is exactly what I think so. We should fix the environment, because sooner or later they will extinct again. Changes are also dangerous for people so let’s think about the basics.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
I am also afraid about mutations. Of course the scenario of movie is a little too crazy, but I think that it can only lead to more problems than benefits.
1) What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteWell, the modification of genomes is an interesting phenomenon. Only if we really want to do this, by modifying the genomes will we disturb the harmony of the world around us. Juliusz Machulski in Sexmission showed how we can manipulate the manipulated world (of course I know that it wasn't about genomes) but today it can be about genomes. Ethics in all of this is very important. What does "just cause" mean? Is the lack of consent for the removal of a child from the United Kingdom to Italy (state of health) is the right reason?
2) If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
Extinct species should not be animated. The revival of Frankenstein, which was supposed to be the creation of the idea from the foundations that had gone away, turned out to be a creature of a monster, intelligent and showing human impulses, but unable to find itself in the surrounding reality. Do we want such monsters to surround us?
3) What are the risks of such revivals?
As I wrote earlier, we can wake up a monster with whom we will have to live, look after it and tolerate its behavior.
4) Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
That's how we should invest in rescuing what is currently living and not trying to revive what spontaneously perished. That's exactly what we do not know why a given species of animal, creature, has perished. Perhaps his return will shake the wreckage of our present life?
5) Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
I believe that we can not control it. Such a process can evidently lead to a situation with Jurasic Park. At this point, I would rather be in a safe place - only if it will exist?
Thank you for an interesting article. Ideas for resurrecting mammoths are not good in my opinion. There were some reasons that contributed to their extinction. Setting them up for life will not be effective in the long term. Another important aspect is the risk associated with such activities that in my opinion is unpredictable. If scientists take such actions, the characteristics of these animals and the threats they bring to the ecosystem should be observed. Certainly, the environment will benefit more from caring for the preservation of existing species that are threatened with extinction. The scenario in the Jurassic Park is too strong. These solutions are associated with the idea of persistent improvement of the world, which examples were straightening rivers during communism ... Humanity is developing and new ideas are on a much wider scale ... A positive aspect is the high development of genetics as a science.
ReplyDeleteI cannot agree with you more. Indeed, there has to be a reason why certain species died off. And for that very reason they shouldn't be revived. What's more I'm also very sceptical when it comes to messing with nature and animals' genome, as the final outcome cannot be predicted.
DeleteI expected a more sensational message - like a 'living breathing' mammoth, and instead it's just some skin tissue that was implanted with the 'extinct' DNA and... surivived, I guess.
ReplyDelete1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
Well, I'm actually for greater caution when playing with DNA. Probably the most popular genetic experiments can be done on viruses, which may pose a problem if it gets out of control.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
Definitely separate. We can experiment by exposing the dinosaurs / mammoths to captive animals and wild-like controlled conditions. But if things go down, we need to be able to reliably kill them all off. In case of a species endangering mutation getting out in the wild, there will be higher costs and no guarantee of reversing the effects of such an experiment.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
I actually am not as weary of large organisms (i.e. Godzillas), because we have good ways of dealing with large oponnents (see Yamato battleship). But a mosquito that could spread malaria, cross all climate zones and be resistant to DDT would be a greater nuisance.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
I'm not en expert in this field and I don't know the nubmers. In the case of preservation of species it seems logical. Especially because I don't condone releasing the 'mutts' into real ecosystems.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
Even if we could control the DNA fully (which I don't think we can, and we don't know all the possible combinations yet), there is a big difference between controlling the genetic outcome and controlling the actual phenotype specimen, if it gets out and starts multiplying like a virus and wreaking havoc.
Tomek, in fact the scientists plan to produce a living, breathing mammoth in two years time... As soon as they come up with the idea, how to create an artificial womb, as they claim that putting genetically altered embryo into elephant's womb can be too risky for the animal itself. So, all we have to do is to wait and see what happens.
DeleteGene modification occurs all the time spontaneously. There is a process like crossingover. If the species cannot survive, it will naturally die out. It does not matter whether the species are artificially created by humans or whether they are naturalized. That is why he is not afraid of artificially created species.
ReplyDeleteIf scientists manage to revive an extinct species, I am in favour of keeping it in closed. New species are a danger to old species.
This is a similar situation that seemed to exist in Australia. New species emerged that dominated endemic species. These are rabbits and next dingo dogs. A similar situation can be on the global scale. Therefore, reborn species should be kept closed.
It does not matter in terms of time. When it comes to safety and knowledge, it is safer to try to preserve a species that is dying out. Reconstruction of an extinct species can have unexpected consequences.
Of course, we can control the replication of DNA. The problem is that it is not clear which specific information encodes the DNA data.
1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteI think this topic should be treated very carefully. On the one hand, it benefits humanity. But on the other hand it can cause great harm. In the form of viruses, diseases or simply undermining the human immune system.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
It is difficult to answer this question. I think it would be possible to do something with the endangered species of dinosaurs. If of course this will carry more benefit than harm.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
Tomasz Gandor perfectly answered this question ;)
I also think that there are no risks in Jurassic Park
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
Depends. I think it would be possible to save other species of organisms, and at the same time to resurrect the extinct ones, if, of course, it would be possible to cut spending on the military sphere for example. But unfortunately this world does not need it
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
I wrote about him in my third reply. But to be honest - I do not think so. I think mankind can control this process if it is responsible for this
I'm not quite sure if really mankind can fully control the process of DNA mutation. I mean, we still are learning about genes, their modification, the way they can be altered etc. One cannot take full responsibility of something one has limited knowledge about.
Delete1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteGenetic modifications may be of concern, but in my opinion they are necessary to make new discoveries. If we want to find new drugs, we should better understand the genome of various organisms and it is connected with their modification.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
I do not think we should revive extinct species. They died out for some reason, and they should not return to Earth. However, if this were to happen, it would be in strictly controlled closed conditions.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
It is unknown how the current ecosystem will behave after the appearance of the species which already died out a long time ago. This can disturb the entire balance on earth. Old diseases may also appear, it is unknown how the organisms living on Earth would react to them nowadays.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
In my opinion, the money should be used to protect living organisms that are in danger of extinction.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
We cannot fully control DNA mutations, but thinking that this lead to the immediate appearance of a Jurassic park is a lot exaggerated. However, when it comes to genomes of organisms that have died out, in my opinion they should only be analysed, and not modified or used for revival.
You made a very valid point. I also think that bringing extinct species to live can cause some serious disturbances of our ecosystem. The subject of old diseases didn't come to my mind, but you're totally right, we don't know what the extinct species suffered from, so in fact by reviving them scientists can re-open the Pandora's box.
Delete1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteI think that modyfing genomes can improve our knowledge and if it let us to bring back extinct animal species that a good thing.
It's really hard to say about ethical when we manipulate DNA. Every manipulation of DNA is messing with nature.
No one who deals with this subject thinks in these categories.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
We aren't able to fully predict how that animal behave so they should be kept in separated areas. Moreover, that animal could be dangerous for other in the wild.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
That the animal on wild would be replace by animal from lab. Nature always regulates the ratio of predators and victims. If we disturb this balance, the effects can be terrible.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
Yes, but we can't stop progress in genetics. We could found out something really important in this quite new field of knowledge.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
I don't think that someone would open similar park-it should be banned.
That animal should be only used to research. We shouldn't let them to live on wild.
I guess you are right, scientists dealing with DNA, genome mutations etc. aren't thinking that they're messing with nature or God's creation, they're just doing their job and what's more they're trying to expand mankind's knowledge of the world and the way it really works.
Delete1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteLet's imagine a child coming to a playground where is a building made of lego blocks. Inevitably it will start arranging the blocks creating diverse structures, apart of playing with the previous building construction set. If there is no environmental conflict, a play is just a play, good and bad comes when the play makes harm to the owner of the building.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
People in their ignorance often do things because they 'CAN', neglecting the fact that nature doesn't need an attorney, the Universe in it's infinity doesn't run for anything. The major problem is that people perceive wilderness and the word 'wild' as something unconscious.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
The risks of stupidity are infinite. Starting with eg. : engineering and applying species that can wipe out the whole ecosystem (thats humanity at this point of 'evolution' actually)
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
I agree 100%. I'd say, not necesarilly money funds, but any type of energy, eg. intellectual, to protect and preserve the environment, merging the knowledge and wisdom - staying as close to nature as possible.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
Name one aspect of life that you can fully control:) it's exactly what's Jurassic Park about.
1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteI think that modifying genomes will always bring some ethical questions. I think that it is not good. You never know if messing with nature won't cause suffer for being created after the modifications.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
I think that they should be kept in separate areas because the most beauty is in nature that was not destroyed by human.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
The risk is that the nature we know may be changed. Some changes are good and natural but to many of them and rapidly introduced may bring a disaster for our ecosystem.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
Yes, first we should take care of what we have. Then if we have enough resources, we can try to restore dead species.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
I do not think that Jurassic Parks scenario is possible but who knows?
I am against modifying genomes. In my opinion this is the first step towards human’s race destruction. This is not a science, this is simply experimenting. As for reviving extinct species, I wouldn’t like to meet them because I would be scared, definitely. So, if it happens, such “beings” should be separated, not in wild areas, but in closed areas. All the risks are unpredictable, in my opinion. Definitely, I’d rather spend money on conserving and healing living species, instead of reviving dead ones. Messing with DNA and genomes can lead to the scenario we can’t predict, in my opinion. Jurassic Park is also possible.
ReplyDeleteThis is simply playing God’s role. My intuition tells me, that it cannot be bright future in the end of such activities. I have no proof, but I wouldn’t live in a world legally accepting such practices.
BR,
Marta
I also think that messing with nature can bring no good whatsoever, but the scientists dealing with DNA on a daily basis wouldn't agree with us. Let's just hope that we won't be the ones who were right and the worst case scenario will not come true.
Delete1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteI fully support gene altering. I don't think there is some holy natural order that must be obeyed "or else". In my ethics, it ethical not only for "good cause" but also "because we can".
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
That depends on the species. Many extinct species are extinct because no longer fit for their environment. So I wouln't worry too much about re-introducing recently lost species back to the wilds. And species that went extinct long time ago would not adapt to current environment anyway.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
There is a tiny possibility that some organisms were lost as a cause of unfortunate event, but otherwise were perfectly adapted and expansive. Reviving those can be dangerous.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
This assumes there is some fixed pool of money that will be spent either on conservation efforts or de-extinction. I don't think that is the case. So conservation funds will be still used for conservation, and new revival efforts will get its own funding.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
We can't control mutation and other adaptation mechanisms, but: was Jurassic Park (all those movies) that bad? It might look not so good when being part of the story, but objectively - there was nothing of disaster.
1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, we should not modify the genome. It's playing God. Human dreams of improving himself, creating a better human. Both in literature and films, we can see the desires of human in the pursuit of perfection. It may happen that along with a given species, a disease will be reproduced that is transmitted by a given species and about which we may have no idea.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
If a people manages to recreate extinct species, they should be kept in a special zone. At a time when a given species lived there was a different vegetation, specificity of the climate and species of animals. It's not known how current animals will accept a stranger.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
Reconstructing a given genre may cause another to drown. New diseases and viruses will be revealed.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
I think it's better to care for existing species so that they don't die. These species are adapted to the current climate prevailing on earth. They give us food and affect the entire food chain.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
Playing with DNA is playing God. Human is imperfect and can't understand everything. The script from the film can be repeated. By playing with DNA, we can lead to the extinction of a given genre or even eliminate ourselves from the present world. I think we can't fully control DNA mutations.
For me, there is nothing ethically wrong in modifying genomes, it's the part of science after all. If a given species was revived to balance something in the ecosystem then such species should be kept in the wild. If it was purely experimental endeavor just to check if it is possible then probably it would be better to keep such animals in separation.
ReplyDeleteMaybe revied species can lead to mutation of some viruses or eat other animals that are important for the ecosystem causing the extinction of other species.
Conserving living animals should have a higher priority but still, a large part of general funds should be spent on research.
I hope that messing DNA can lead to something like Jurassic Park. Every boy, even in nearly thirties dream about visiting Jurassic Park and seeing real dinosaurs.
I guess I am not a real fan of Jurassic Park, as I prefer that such a place remains a part of the movie script. Bearing in mind, all parts of the film, I wouldn't like to for a sightseeing trip to a park like this.:)
Delete1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteI would say, go for it if it can help. It's hard to succeed without risking.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
Jurassic Park style? :D Let's make separated areas and find out if it's ok. If you take a look at species like white rhinos, then I'm completely fine with keeping them with other animals.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
Jurassic Park...
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
Why not on both? We have enough resources to do that.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
Yes, it will lead to something similar. Can we control mutations? No, we can't, we are far from having enough knowledge to do that correctly.
Hello.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the article. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on that subject, but I'll try to answer your questions.
1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
I think that it's natural way of the evolution that we can modify the genome by ourselves.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
I think that they should have some separation. I can imagine that their posterities could have much more immunity for external conditions and ilnesses than they would probably have.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
If not controlled and separated, they could lead to the situation where multiple, currently living species, would gain a new, natural enemy. And, paradoxically, we can make new species being endangered and extinct.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
I think that the progress of science should be equal in every way and there should not be "what is better to spend funds" question. This approach would stop the development of civilisation until it cures every illness and manages with a hunger and the poverty.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
I'm sorry, but I don't know where are the limits of the cognition and the control of DNA mutation process :(
1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteOf course, it is messing with nature but it doesn`t mean that it must be unethical. But we need to discuss about it and be careful.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
Hard to say. Of course it would be better if they would leave in the wilds but we need to remember that reviving even one specie can change the environment where it will live.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
I’ve answered on that in the point above.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
I think it is better to spend those money on conserving the living species. Why? Because conserving the living will make our current world better even for us.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
Yes it can lead to such scenario, and we will never have full control on those processes
1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if that makes sense. I omit ethics because it is a secondary problem. I ask myself: why do I need mammoths? Their times have passed - according to the laws of nature – why should we change it?
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
In my opinion they should be kept in separated areas. Do you really imagine that you are walking in the forest, and there are mammoths running suddenly? It sounds strange, somehow... If a man interferes in the genetics of extinct species, he must dominate it - otherwise he will destroy the natural food chain.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
As mentioned in the article: “It is ethically messy, ecologically awkward”.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
Yes, I agree. Referring to my question from 1st point, I do not finally see the point in resurrecting extinct species…
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
It is also not my cup of tea but I think that it can be dangerous in an ecological sense. It can simply disrupt the natural order of things. We probably already know a lot about DNA mutation but nevertheless it is a delicate subject to be approached with caution.
1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteIt is question that I do not like because we are not talking about something what is clear. I am not fan of this kind of activities… but I can not to say it is not ethical. If it helps people in suffering then it could be ...good?
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
I think we should not try to revive extinct species and mix the species ….
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
Maybe it would not sounds like a researcher opinion but - if something has gone past away then we should not fight with nature.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
Yes I do. We should focus on a species and problems that are present in nowadays and that which can change our status from present to extinct.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
It is too complicated and we will not be able to understand this process and whole mutation in next 200 years. After couple discussions about DNA I am pretty sure above statement.
1. What do you think about modifying genomes? Is it messing with nature ethical in your opinion if it is done for "good cause"?
ReplyDeleteModifying genomes for the good cause is somethinng that I strongly support. In my opinion it can do a lot of good to the world and to the poeple. It can make a great contribute to the medicine and discovering the cure for the untreatable illnesses, or help to create better products (mainly vegetables and fruits), which can be helpful in order to fight against the hunger and poverty.
2. If people start to revive extinct species, should they be kept in the wilds or in separated areas? Please support your choice with opinion.
I am sure that in such cases the revives spieces should be kept in separated area, at least as long as they must be observed and examined. No one knows how this species will behave and if they will cooperate with other species ot if they will fight against them. For the good of other species, including poeple, and also such revived animals, it is crucial that such species will be kept in separated, fully supervised areas.
3. What are the risks of such revivals?
As I said before, the greatest risk is that such revived spieces will fight against other spieces, mainly human beings, and cause a lot of unneccesary deaths. It can also cause the extinction of now alive species, by making them their food and by taking away the funds currently spending on the conserving the living species. Speaking generally, such revivals may also has an undefined impact on the ecosystem.
4. Do you agree that it's better to spend funds on conserving the living species instead of trying to bring other ones from dead?
Yes, I agree with that. I think that the main goal of bringing back the extincted spiecies is the increase of biodiversity, and not just fulfill some fantasises based on Jurassic Park ;) And when we look at it that way it is obvious, that there is more advantages coming from conserving the living species than from bringing ones from the dead. If we take into consideration the datas described in the article – that one spiece bringing from the dead equals two species saved – there is no hesitation that we should focus on protecting living species from the extinction.
5. Do you think that messing with DNA and genomes can lead to Jurassic Park scenario? Can we fully control DNA mutation process?
You can not unmistakeably answer to these questions. I think that messing with the DNA is very difficult proccess and must be carry out with all the possible carefulness. Of course when the poeple responsible for the researches will not take a good care of everything, it can have some dangerous and unpredictable effects, but so it is with almost every tests in the world. It is not possible to be one hundred percent sure what will be the results of mutation proccess, but in my opinion it can’t completely stop the researches.