Right to Survive: When Science considers erasing a species to end suffering

When can life-saving justify erasing entire species from Earth?

A new international study published in Science solves this tricky moral problem, as genetic engineering makes intentional extinction increasingly possible. The study looked at three specific cases in which scientists might eliminate harmful species and concluded that such extreme measures may be justified, but only in the rarest cases.

The research focuses on organisms that cause great pain: meat-eating screwworms, malaria mosquitoes and invasive rodents that are driving island bird extinction. Everyone raised different moral questions about the value of species and the harm caused.

Screwworm erasing

New World Screwworm is the leading candidate for intentional extinction. This parasite lays eggs and the mucosa and mucosa of warm-blooded animals. The larvae then dig out the living flesh, literally their host is still alive and causes bacterial infections that are often proven to be fatal.

Screwworms have been phased out from North and Central America through traditional methods, and continue to exist throughout South America, where the cost of eradicating efforts is too high. But new genetic techniques may change the equation significantly. Scientists have developed cyclic modified strains that can eliminate female larvae unless exposed to tetracycline, making population control more efficient and cost-effective.

Pain is undeniable. From livestock losses that threaten food security to occasional human infections that lead to slow, painful deaths, screwworms can cause enormous damage. However, even this is not clear.

Where philosophy fits pest control

This study reveals how we value the fascinating tension of different species. Although Western conservation philosophy generally believes that all species have equal intrinsic value, the study points to the willingness to eliminate certain organisms in the evolutionary tree “may be disliked by parasites or ignored by those seen as lower ones.”

This responds to ancient concepts such as “Scala Naturae” or “Great Chain of Existence” that rank cons in moral hierarchies, while Ideas are largely rejected in Western thought but still exist in other philosophical traditions. For example, some sub-Saharan African environmental frameworks recognize “hierarchies of existence” with different characteristics and purposes.

“These cases highlight the tension between the intrinsic value of a species and the benefits of eliminating harmful pests,” explains Clare Palmer, PhD, a professor of philosophy and co-author of the study. “Although the suffering these species have caused is undeniable, the moral implications of deliberately extinction of species are profound.”

Malaria dilemma

Anopheles Gambiae mosquitoes show a more distinct moral calculation. These insect-borne malaria parasites kill more than 400,000 people each year, and have nearly 290 million infections worldwide. In theory, gene drivers may collapse due to sexual ratio skew, but studies believe this extreme step is not necessary.

The real goal should be the malaria parasite itself, not its carrier. Elimination of Plasmodium (the organism that actually causes disease) can be achieved through improved mosquitoes that cannot spread the parasite, combined with vaccines, bed nets and improved healthcare infrastructure.

When intrusion is reasonable to eliminate

The invasive species on the island are the most obvious moral case of genetic elimination. House rats, black rats and Norwegian rats threaten many endemic birds, extincting the islands of Oceania. These rodents have actually eaten seabirds alive, driving the loss of vulnerable populations.

Gene drivers targeting these invasive mammals will be more humane and environmentally friendly than using traps and poisons. However, the researchers stress that this approach can only accept local extinction, and almost zero eliminates the risk of global species.

Set moral boundaries

The study established several criteria that must be aligned before the eradication of species is considered through genetic modification:

• This species can cause extremes, otherwise it can prevent pain in humans or animals.
• Traditional control methods prove inadequate or impossible
• This species lacks vital ecological importance
• The risk of unexpected consequences is still negligible
• Local communities and stakeholders are meaningfully involved in decision-making

“We collectively believe that these cases show that intentional full extinction may be acceptable occasionally, but extremely rare,” the research team concluded.

Destroy democracy

Perhaps most importantly, the study emphasizes that such a major decision cannot be made by scientists alone. Local communities, especially indigenous peoples with unique land rights, must have primary power over the release on their territory.

This can bring complex governance challenges. Should global opinions matter when considering the complete extinction of species? When will the development of technologies that mainly affect the southern part of the global North develop among the global target species?

“Our goal is to promote a more nuanced understanding of the moral dimension of genomic modification,” Palmer notes. “We need to balance potential benefits with moral responsibility for all species.”

As genetic tools become more powerful and precise, these philosophical questions will only become increasingly urgent. Technology to deliberately exterminate species already exists. Now is the more difficult task to decide whether we should use it.

Related