A real-life Jurassic Park: that’s perhaps how you could best describe the work of researchers trying to bring extinct animal species back to life. But this time they’re not dinosaurs. Instead, scientists are studying unique zebras, iconic pigeons, gigantic tortoises, and even the woolly mammoth. Researchers at Utrecht University studied the motives that play a role in selecting extinct animals for ‘de-extinction’. Their research shows that only the most ‘charismatic’ species are ever considered for resurrection. That is noteworthy, because the ethical guidelines for de-extinction state that only their positive ecological impact should play a role in the consideration. Time for some clarification.

Jurassic Park visualises a future in which dinosaurs have been brought back to life. To draw visitors to the amusement park, they mainly resurrect the most spectacular and iconic dinosaurs - the T. Rex, not tiny lizards.

Scientists who actually work to bring back extinct species, like the Quagga, are encouraged to do so for ecological reasons. Several ethical guidelines for ‘de-extinction’ state that bringing back an extinct species is only acceptable if it has ecological benefits, for example because the animal played an important role in maintaining an entire ecosystem. Reintroducing that extinct species can then help save the entire ecosystem.

Decisive factor

However, the researchers from Utrecht have discovered that only the most ‘charismatic’ species are ever considered for resurrection. Their research shows that several different motivations play a role in choosing which species to bring back to life. Restoration of biodiversity and the species’ ecological contributions is definitely one of them, but there are several other reasons as well, such as the chance of making medical discoveries, correcting past humans’ mistakes, or even personal fascinations with the species. “In every case, however, charisma proved to be a decisive factor”, explains Koen Beumer, who led the research team. This exclusive selection of charismatic species raises the question of whether the ecological objectives stipulated in the ethical guidelines are actually being sought after. After all, the same ecological benefits could also be provided by more ‘boring’ species, such as small grasses, microscopic plankton, or grey mice.

Charismatic mammoth or grey mouse?

Previous research has explained the influence of an animal’s charisma on scientific research by pointing to the individual researchers’ biases or preferences. Even scientists can have a soft spot for animals with big eyes, soft pelts, spectacular characteristics or iconic status. “But we also found another explanation”, Beumer adds. The study at Utrecht University shows that the choice for charismatic species is also shaped by structural factors. “Research financiers are looking for spectacular results”, he explains. “Environmental organisations want a figurehead for biodiversity work, and parties in the places where the extinct species will be reintroduced are only willing to go along if they can generate new income from tourism. And that’s simply easier with a charismatic mammoth than with a grey mouse. In that context, it’s really difficult for researchers to choose a less-charismatic species, even if they’re aware of the benefits.” If ‘boring’ and ‘ugly’ animals are ever to find a place in a contemporary Jurassic Park, then we will also have to address these structural aspects.

Ethical considerations

The debate about this motivation is only one aspect of the ethical considerations about the issue. Should we even try to bring back extinct species? Or should we rather focus our efforts on protecting endangered animals? Some people consider it to be a form of ecological restoration, while others fear that it distracts from nature preservation efforts. Animal welfare also plays a crucial role: can the re-born species actually survive in the modern world? The technology presents many potential opportunities, but we should continue to ask ourselves if we should want to take advantage of them all.

Publication

Molhuizen, T., Beumer, K. en Dorresteijn, I. (2025). Who to revive? Explaining charismatic species bias in the selection of de-extinction candidate species. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. Available online first: https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486241310698