Genetic manipulation is a topic that divides opinions. It involves many risks. Monsanto is a ruthless multinational corporation that owns most of the patents for GMO species. Can life be patented and owned? If someone owns the patents for crop species, they can set any price for them. Farmers in the US and many other countries have run into trouble because of this. Many have committed suicide due to financial difficulties. Monsanto does not allow seed-saving but instead sells GMO seeds to farmers at extortionate prices. Monsanto’s GMO varieties have been bred so that you can only use Monsanto’s own insecticides and herbicides with them. Greed.

In Canada, genes were transferred into corn, resulting in the death of a massive number of bees. Genes direct the synthesis of proteins. A GMO species can produce proteins that are dangerous to bees. Peanut genes have been transferred into soy, making the soy life-threatening for people with peanut allergies. The reason lies in the proteins produced by the peanut genes. Organic food is often the healthiest for humans, and agroecological organic farming has, for example, even tripled yields in pilot projects conducted in Africa.

However, the argument that ”man must not play God” is not valid, but rather a rhetorical remark. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have been allowed to develop medicine or technology. GMO species have saved numerous human lives. Asia suffered for a long time from vitamin A deficiency, and the so-called ”golden rice” developed in the 1990s—into which a gene from a carrot was transferred to produce beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A—has saved countless people. In healthcare, gene therapies can cure cancers, and in the future, cancers might be eradicated, much like smallpox was with vaccinations. Last year, scientists succeeded in removing an extra chromosome causing CP disability from an embryo, which means that in the future, the birth of healthy children can be facilitated.

I used to be completely against genetic modification, and partly still am, but as we can see, the issue is not completely black and white. Generally, all technology comes with risks, threats, and opportunities. When the radio was invented, people feared they would die of radiation and that the world would be destroyed by radio waves.

I read the popular science book The Re-Origin of the Species – A second chance for extinct species to life (2017) by Torill Kornfeldt. The book, which takes its name from Darwin’s Origin of the Species, deals with biology, ecology, genetic engineering, microbiology, and environmental science. It considers whether it is ethically right to bring extinct species back to life, how this would be possible using genetic engineering, as well as the history and ecology of different species and what the ecological effects of bringing them back to life would be. It especially focuses a lot on the mammoth, but then considers passenger pigeons, rhinoceroses, and dinosaurs, among others. The book interviews many scientists and introduces paleontological excavations and genetic engineering in laboratories. The main point is that genes can be isolated from paleontological finds and that current species like them could give rise to extinct species. The book mainly sees genetic technology in a good light, but also presents images of threats and criticism: “the difference between utopia and dystopia is a hair’s breadth.” It also considers genetic technology more broadly, such as golden rice, which saved millions of people from death, and Monsanto, which patents food plants and determines their price.

The book increased my understanding of how genes are practically searched for in paleontological material, how they are transferred, and how a species can be brought back to life. It was interesting to read what is practically done with paleontological excavations. It was interesting to read how areas have already been reserved for mammoths and how the extinct rhinoceros—and perhaps even dinosaurs—could return. An example was also the pyrenean ibex (bucardo), which was the first species to be restored. Granted, this revived individual died quickly. Ethical considerations were always present in the book, which I find important. It warned from the Prometheus myth and Frankenstein all the way to Jurassic Park, but the tone was more positive: the cells of the revived species have only been frozen or geologically solidified, and therefore the birth of the animal just takes longer.

Many species, such as the mammoth and passenger pigeon, have disappeared from the ecosystem because of humans, and therefore it would be right to return them to the world. Hunting has driven thousands of species to extinction. Before humans, there were, for example, giant sloths, woolly rhinoceroses, and other megafauna. The last northern white rhinoceros, Sudan, died in Kenya in 2018. All these species used to have their own place in the ecosystem, and they still could. On the other hand, dinosaurs, for example, could be harmful to the ecosystem like many invasive alien species—we cannot be sure. In the best-case scenario, revived species could enrich ecosystems and biodiversity; for example, a mammoth could eat trees on the tundra and keep it open, especially since climate change is moving the tree line further north. The existence of species can also be seen as an intrinsic value. The book reduces fears related to genetic modification and thoughts that humans must not “play God.” The book creates hope for a better future and explains why it would be important to return lost species. Before reading the book, I was more skeptical about genetic technology. However, genetic technology can be an important part of creating a better world and a kind of Noah’s Ark for lost species.