From Frankenstein to Harry Potter, even deeply tied to some religions, resurrection is not a foreign concept to most. The idea of bringing someone back from the dead and having them live again today may seem impossible and fictional. However, with the emergence of resurrection biology, this idea is not as far-fetched as it once seemed. This field has been gaining traction worldwide, but it presents profound ethical concerns when observed closer. What are the impacts of changing the natural processes of life and death? If we perfect this process, how would the world today change? 

At the core, resurrection biology deals with life, which, according to science, is defined by reproducing organisms that carry information through DNA. Resurrection biology, or de-extinction, is the process of bringing extinct species back to life by manipulating DNA through two primary methods: cloning or genetic engineering. Cloning uses preserved DNA from extinct species to create a new organism. If intact cells or DNA from the extinct species can be found, cloning technology injects this DNA into a compatible egg. But, if intact DNA cannot be found, scientists can edit the DNA of closely related living species to resemble that of the extinct species. While there haven’t been successful stories of resurrecting extinct animals yet, scientists are starting with dormant viruses (the oldest being 48,500 years old)  thawing in the Arctic, and they managed to make them infectious again. 

The primary purposes of resurrection biology in the context of extinct animals are to restore biodiversity, advance genetic research, and preserve these extinct species’ cultural/historical value. Also, many believe that de-extinction is a way of correcting our past wrong-doings by hunting certain species to extinction or causing so much biodiversity loss. Wouldn’t bringing back extinct species to preserve their historical value or correcting past human mistakes be unethical? What about the current endangered species in our world? If we can easily bring back extinct species, wouldn’t that theoretically eliminate any need to protect current endangered species? In other words, wouldn’t resurrection biology remove our accountability for protecting endangered species?

Can ecosystems that have adapted since a species’ extinction support the reintroduction of that species? While our current understanding of resurrection biology focuses on viruses and extinct animals, what might happen if scientists discovered a safe method for resurrecting humans? Could there be a debate around the ethics of the process concerning the principles of end-of-life care?

When considering end-of-life care in the context of resurrection, four crucial ethical principles emerge autonomy, dignity, and beneficence. Patients should have the autonomy to make decisions about their care and ensure that a person passes with dignity. In addition, nurses must act in the best interest of patients and avoid unnecessary suffering. But can an extinct animal brought back to life have autonomy over that decision? They never consented to being revived. If the resurrection biology were applied to humans, we would have to ensure that the person who has passed has given full consent to being revived. Also, one could argue that preserving a person’s DNA or cells through freezing may not align with the concept of dignified death. Similarly, when bringing extinct animals back to life, is putting them into a new environment different from when they thrived, considered ‘dignified’? 

Resurrection biology introduces complex questions about manipulating life and death, and its implications for the world. Ultimately, it raises a fundamental question: When is it ethical to interfere with the natural processes of life and death?