“De-extinction,” he started.

The answer, he offered to a smattering of laughter, was “Yes.”

The dog-like marsupial, native to Australia, was hunted to extinction in the early 1900s.

Almost a decade removed from Greely’s talk, the idea of de-extinction remains controversial and hotly debated.

As for the opinion of experts and scientists, it seems like there’s a 50-50 split.

And then there are those who believe de-extinction is simply spectacle; an unethical, misguided gimmick.

Extinction is forever, they say, and nothing can change that.

“De-extinction” suggests we’re able toundoextinction.Reverseit.

But the term is misleading.

In fact, the IUCN guideline document doesn’t even use the word de-extinction in its title.

Nor will the team at Revive & Restore,working on resurrecting the passenger pigeon.

However, itispossible to make significant changes to the DNA, and this technology is improving exponentially.

This, the researchers say, will have benefits for the ecosystems and the planet.

But there are so many questions to answer before we reach that point.

Which is why I keep coming back to Greely’s “hubris or hope” talk.

In it, he lays out both the potential risks and benefits of bringing back extinct species.

He also mentions, presciently, the research won’t be funded by governments or research grants.

Rather, it will be bankrolled by the private sector and philanthropists.

This is a curly moral hazard but it’s definitely not the case de-extinction should render extinction irrelevant.

Even if itdid,should we stop researching the methods needed to bring species back?

Should we stop funding these projects altogether?

Would that be prudent?

I liken it to the solar geoengineering experiments that would potentiallydim the sun with aerosols.

Should we not, at the very least, conduct the basic research and science experiments to know?

As a result, it began a “robust and inclusive” round of engagement with the public.

The conversation needs to begin for de-extinction, too.

We have to know if the public would evenwantthat.

And we need to weigh up, as Greely did, the risks and the benefits.

For the final word, I’ll turn to the professor once again.

Ending his TEDx talk in 2013, he said, “I’m just one voice.

I’m not gonna make this decision you’re gonna make this decision.

“Updated Aug 21: Edits for clarity around bringing back species as they once were.