In David Shultz's article “Should we bring back extinct species?” explains how scientists now have the ability to extinguish potentially extinct animals such as the woolly mammoth and the passenger pigeon. This article describes the three main ways in which de-extinction can occur and why it is essential that scientists use these processes. This article strikes a tone of optimism and urgency while not offering much consideration to the possible negative consequences or moral objections associated with implementing de-extinction methods. In Shlomo Cohen's “The Ethics of De-Extinction,” a more critical framework is offered for examining whether de-extinction is necessary in the case of any particular species. Cohen argues that we should criticize the need for de-extinction on the basis of five criteria: “de-extinction's possible contribution to the promotion of ecological values, the deontological argument that we owe de-extinction to the species we have made extinct, the question of “playing” God ' through de-extinction, the utilitarian perspective, and the role of aesthetic considerations in the ethics of de-extinction” (Cohen 1). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay When it comes to the field of biological sciences, it is important to evaluate de-extinction based on verifiable criteria. If we ignore Cohen's weighty philosophical questions, two valid questions remain. What is the utility and what is the ecological impact? In David Shultz's article these questions are answered. The utility of de-extinction, from the human perspective, is scientific progress. Currently, the three most promising methods for reviving these animals are breeding and cloning. and genetic engineering. The latter method is used in groups of mammoths and passenger pigeons. Scientists are using the CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) method to extract specific traits from extinct species and implant them into a modern surrogate (Shultz). For example, the gene that makes mammoths hairy could be implanted into the DNA of an Asian elephant. If scientists were allowed to continue these practices on extinct creatures, they might one day be able to use them to improve human health. Perhaps genes that increase the chance of breast cancer could be altered. The possibilities are endless. The opportunity for scientific progress meets Cohen's criteria by clearly demonstrating a utilitarian purpose for continued de-extinction efforts. Cohen argues that for de-extinction to be ethical it must promote ecological values ​​(Cohen 1). Shultz offers several positive ecological effects that de-extinction could have. After the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon were removed from their ecosystems, these environments were negatively modified. When mammoths pooped and trampled the tundra, it helped spread the seeds and maintain the grasslands. Passenger pigeons had highly flammable droppings that caused forest fires, a healthy natural disturbance to forests. Pigeons were also the primary method used by white oaks to disperse their seeds (Shultz). Bringing back these two species would restore Arctic grasslands and replenish forests. It would be ecologically valuable. In conclusion, by comparing the information provided in David Shultz's article with the criteria for ethical de-extinction offered by Shlomo Cohen, it is evident that resurrecting woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon populations is an ethical pursuit. Works Cited: Author, D., & Dorn, D. (2013). There is little growth in jobs in services.