Resurrecting formerly extinct animal species has been a utopian dream for many researchers, and even Hollywood used this idea to resurrect dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. As implausible and surreal it may seem – scientifically speaking we’re not that far off from being able to bring back extinct species. The recent huge breakthroughs in the area of genetic engineering and stem cell biology have turned this utopia into a not-so-distant reality. However, researchers are not planning to resurrect dinosaurs anytime soon, rather, they are considering to bring back the mammoth, the aurochs, or the wild pigeon. Moreover, for many species that are not yet extinct, but severely endangered, this technique dubbed “de-extinction” could secure their survival. But what should the newly resuscitated species be called? Environmental lawyers and biogeographic scientists at the university in Trier have discussed this question and possible legal repercussions in an article for the journal “Science“.

Vague copies of the originals

Humans have caused mass extinctions over the course of the last several millennia. By now scientific progress has made it possible to resurrect some of these species. Nevertheless, only organisms that have vanished within the last 20.000 years or so could be revived – the DNA of species that died out before that would be too degraded by now to be used to resurrect the organism. Thus, reviving dinosaurs, which went extinct roughly 65 million years ago, à la Jurassic Park remains pure science fiction. A far more pressing issue however is, how the newly revived organisms should be named. Even using the most advanced genetic and molecular methods to bring these species back – at best – they would be a rough copy of the original. This is due to two major limitations: in most cases in order to resurrect a species, genetic information of a host species will have to be used as well. Moreover, certain distinct features such as learned behaviour are not present in the genes.

Special name tag for new organisms

Plant and animal species are categorized on several lists from “not-endangered” to “endangered” or “extinct”. In case a species can be revived and would carry the same name as the original, it would not only be biologically misleading but might also be within a legal grey area. The researchers at Trier university argue as follows: resurrected species should carry their own name. It should be marked by the affix “recr” for “recrearis” in order to clearly classify them as artificially reintroduced. This label would identify them clearly in a biological as well as legal context and thus greatly simplify their handling.

The scientists furthermore point out that due to their origin in genetic engineering, settling these species in Europe would also fall under the genetic engineering laws. Although this issue is very much independent of the question regarding nomenclature, it nonetheless also requires legal clarification.

jmr