Rating: 4.5 stars

Resurrection Science by M.R. O'Connor takes a look at current conservation movement and it's possible future. This book is written in an engaging manner that doesn't bog the reader down with too much heavy science. Personally, I would have liked to read more science, but that isn't the focus of the book.

The author delves into the history of the conservation movement, exploring a handful of species facing imminent extinction via the thought-provoking, often sad and almost always futile stories of the men and women trying to save these species. Each chapter deals with a different species of animal that raises a different question regarding the course of conservation and extinction. Should species be protected/saved if it is detrimental to the human community around it? At what point does a hybridized species stop being what it was originally? If human interference is largely responsible for the differences between a species that has been fragmented, are they still the original endangered species? How can we protect endangered species that we know very little about? What if breeding a species in captivity results in erasing the behaviors that were the defining features of that species? Would artificially reviving a species produce the same species, or would it be different, with different behaviours? Is on the ground conservation more feasible than storing genetic material/data?

Ms O'Connor discusses the complex ethical issues behind conserving, modifying and resurrecting species in what appears to be a balanced manner, taking into account economics, ethics, science and the nature of humans. De-extinction is the process of creating an organism, which is either a member of, or resembles an extinct species, or breeding population of such organisms, with cloning or selective breeding being the proposed methods. There is significant controversy over de-extinction, with critics asserting that efforts would be better spent conserving existing species, and that the habitat necessary for formerly extinct species to survive is too limited to warrant de-extinction. There is also the conflict between nature/animals and the developmental needs of humans - in essence, determining what a species is worth. The author also takes a look at genetic conservation. This involves gene banks containing millions of tissue samples of extinct and still living species, stored in the hopes that future generations can use the genetic material to bring back extinct species.

This book is a well-written, interesting and thought provoking look at the science and ethics of current and future conservation efforts. The author asks uncomfortable questions and raises troubling points that should be considered.
( )

I received a free copy of this book from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.

This book was phenomenal. [a: M.R. O'Connor|10803952|M.R. O'Connor|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] did an excellent job of examining not only the question of extinction and the controversial subject of de-extinction, but of asking the very uncomfortable question 'What is a species worth?' What is it that makes a person decide that one species is worth saving over another, and is saving a species from extinction truly a worthwhile endeavor? Does everything have an intrinsic value?

The book is divided into 8 chapters, each focusing upon a different species either going extinct, or possibly being revived. For those interested the subjects of the chapters are as follows:
Spray Toads
Florida Panthers
White Sands Pupfish
Northern Right Whales
Hawaiian Crow
Northern White Rhino
Passenger Pigeon
Neanderthal

Each species discussed raises a different question regarding the course of extinction and conservation. Should we save or protect a species if doing so hurts the human community around it? At what point of hybridization does a species stop being what it originally was? If human interference is largely responsible for the differences between a species that has been fragmented - are they still the original endangered species? What can we do to protect endangered species we know very little about? What if breeding a creature in captivity ends up erasing the very behaviors that were the hallmark of the species? Would reviving a species artificially result in the same species? Is conservation on the ground more worth it than rescuing the genetic data?

These questions and more abound, and are examined from all angles. The result is a book that looks at the ethical questions beyond conservation in a way that I've seldom seen discussed. This book is vitally important, engaging, and thought provoking. I would like nothing more than to see this book in the hands of everyone involved in the environmental movements. It asks uncomfortable questions and raises troubling points that need to be raised.

I can't emphasize enough how much I adored this text. ( )

I received this book from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.

This is a fascinating look at the current conservation movement, its history and its future. The book has eight chapters, each dedicated to the on-going work with a specific species, ranging from the very unusual spray toads in eastern Africa, to nearly-extinct pumas in the Florida swamps, to the Hawaiian crows and northern white rhinos.

This engaging book is expertly researched, and the data is presented and analyzed from all angles: political, environmental, financial, and emotional. Ms. O’Connor lays out a meticulous story, weaving the tales of species facing imminent extinction with the thought-provoking stories of the men and women trying to save these species. The author obviously has a passion for their work, as well as a passion for presenting the entire picture, forcing the reader to face tough ethical issues head-on. Her approach isn’t overbearing, surprisingly, and comes across as very balance and forthright. She presents questions to which there are few answers, and it strikes deeply.

I don’t necessarily agree with some of the material presented, but it was a quick, easy read, and a good place for someone to start into the world of conservationism, the science of de-extinction (bringing species back from the brink of extinction), and a thoughtful presentation of the arguments both for and against these theories. ( )

[b:Resurrection Science: Conservation, De-extinction and the Precarious Future of Wild Things|23848047|Resurrection Science Conservation, De-extinction and the Precarious Future of Wild Things|M.R. O'Connor|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1430945113s/23848047.jpg|43458049] feels like a companion/response to [b:The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History|17910054|The Sixth Extinction An Unnatural History|Elizabeth Kolbert|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1372677697s/17910054.jpg|25095506] because the touch on similar themes: what have we humans done to our ecosystems? Unlike Sixth Extinction, though, Resurrection Science examines some of the efforts in response to what seems to be one of the biggest massive die-offs we've seen.

Or is it? The intro muses over how we define the numbers of species going extinct and how we calculate it. It seems as the rates have been overestimated so that's somewhat cheering, but habitats are still being lost at a rapid rate. When we make efforts to conserve a species, just what are we conserving- the species itself, as many amphibian species such as the spray toads of Kihansi in Tanzania have their largest populations in captivity, or habitat restoration? What about the Frozen Arks-we preserve the DNA, the blueprints for many organisms, but does that save behaviors and interactions between species? (If we continue the blueprint analogy, it's like using Anasazi blueprints for a kiva but not really knowing what to use it for or how the ceremonies were performed)

Technology can be used for good (Ben Novak's passenger pigeon project is nothing short of ambitious, but also amazing considering he was able to extract over 60% passenger pigeon DNA from museum specimens- a huge win for studying old DNA). But, it shouldn't be considered a substitute for a more comprehensive view of our world, and while we can rescue species, does it matter if their habitats and their interactions are gone?

As my last couple updates indicate, I really enjoyed the coda where O'Connor considers why we feel this drive to save endangered/revive extinct species- what exactly is "nature" and "natural" in an age where Homo sapiens have touched every part of the globe in the last thousands of years? Pupfish populations are isolated and scattered- if one originated because a fish biologist moved them to a non-military site location, is it natural, or does that even matter because pupfish are so rare? The intangibility of 'nature' doesn't mean we shouldn't try to atone for our actions as a species, but consideration should be made on why we feel the need to do so. ( )

A fascinating and sobering look at the fate of species on earth in light of the effects we humans are having on nature. Extinction is put into perspective nicely and is shown to be both less serious, in terms of sheer number of taxa being lost, and more serious, in terms of the pervasive effects humans have on nature. Even if we are not causing the extinction of the same number of species as some of the more serious predictions suggested, we are affecting all species in unpredictable ways.

In addition, the author takes a serious look at the tools gradually becoming available to ecologists to practice what is being called genetic conservation. This involves managing not just numbers of individuals in a species, but also managing the genetic resources of the species to better ensure long-term survival and viability. Such tools also include gene and tissue banking and the ultimate possibility of de-extinction of species. O'Connor looks deeply into the ethical and philosophical aspects of such a possibility and reveals how controversial such ideas are. He even discusses the potential that some scientists have suggested of re-resurrecting Neanderthals. Pretty heady stuff. ( )