Good news came for Sioux City, Iowa according to an article written by Maryann Bird for Time magazine, when a beloved cow, Bessie, became pregnant. The baby daddy of the unborn fetus was none other than a dead gaur, which is a type of endangered, wild ox native to Asia. Gaurs have been born to surrogate mothers that were cows before, but this case is unique. Noah, which is what the unborn gaur has been named, is a clone, which is an exact DNA replica of his 'father'. Bessie is one of eight cows who did not have their pregnancy terminated by a miscarriage or have emergency abortions throughout the pregnancy, making Noah the sole survivor and the only one to have a chance at being studied for future replications of the experiment. Bird writes that such a remarkable experiment is unprecedented, as an exact DNA replica of a creature has never been born to a surrogate mother before, and opens doors to a future of more possibilities to save species in trouble such as the gaur that are diminishing quickly. Cloning, and other genetic engineering methods might be the only option to save them from suffering the same fate as the dinosaurs who lived millions of years ago. Every time "a poacher kills an animal or it dies from infection, its genes are lost forever", but in the case of Noah's 'father', his genes were able to be recreated, thus preserving his legacy and ensuring that there is one more of his species left in the world to carry on (Woody). It is not enough to try to stop habitat destruction from occurring, for "it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend all that energy on habitat preservation if there are no animals left to preserve" (Woody). We need to save the endangered species of the world, and simply preserving habitat or breeding animals naturally in zoos or wildlife conservation centers takes too much time, and it is time that we do not have. More efforts need to be taken to stop endangered species' numbers from dwindling before there are none left to try to save. But, current efforts such as Noah's birth "will come as a boost to many biologists in the U.S. and Europe who are engaged in a range of "assisted reproduction" conservation strategies" (Bird). Now, we are able to imagine new possibilities and strategies beyond older, more traditional ones for saving species. We are able to control their outcomes and ensure that we do not lose the precious yet critically endangered species that inhabit our planet. 

It is no surprise that we humans have developed unimaginable technological processes over the years to make our lives tremendously easier. We are able to genetically alter the DNA of various crops and livestock species in order to maximize output of food and resources and minimize the work that goes into producing these outputs. But could we be able to extend this to beyond just ensuring we benefit from this DNA altering technology? What if we were able to enhance the lives of the animals we transform? That was the goal with Noah and the gaurs. Due to rapidly changing climate, habitat destruction, and other human-caused destruction, "15 -- 40% of living species will be effectively extinct by 2050" (Jha). This number is ridiculously and unacceptably high, and the guar could be included in this statistic if nothing is done immediately to help them. That is where genetic engineering comes into play. Genetic engineering is defined as "the science of making changes to the genes of a plant or animal to produce a desired result" (Genetic). Genetic engineering includes many different methods such as cloning, artificial insemination, facilitated adaptation, and in vitro fertilization, where when put into effect, could increase genetic diversity in the gene pool, increase population numbers of different species, or simply allow for hardier, more resistant individuals. An animal with severe risk for extinction would benefit from quicker, more successful action than other slower, more traditional ones. Genetic engineering should be implemented in the conservation of endangered species. This may bring about an increase in genetic diversity and the robustness of individuals of species who need it faster and easier than more traditional methods such as natural selection or relocation, which could require years before they show some type of positive effects.

It is important that genetic engineering is used wisely. The power it holds makes it able to be utilized for so much more than corn or tomatoes. But when it comes to animals in the wild, it should only be used to protect species that are still alive. This is because they still hold a place in their respective habitats. For example, gaurs both eat grass and plants which allows the foliage to stay trim and not overwhelm the landscape. They also feed large predators. Many species that are evaporating in thin air are crucial to the survival and maintaining of another. It should be used smartly, and restoring a T-Rex or Saber-toothed tiger would not be wise. One reason is because some have died out from natural causes and it was not because of humans. Also, if there is not much room now for the species alive now, then we certainly do not have space for species that have been long dead. As author of Ressurection Science MR O'Connor puts it, "Until we make space for other species on Earth, it won't matter how many animals we resurrect" (Kushner). Bringing them back does not guarantee their survival either. We could bring back a mammoth, but what if after being gone for so long there's nothing left to mimic what life used to be like for these creatures? For example, conservationists introduced the "whooping crane back into the wild, for example, the birds weren't able to migrate without following the lead of a human pilot in an aircraft" (Kushner). These animals serve no purpose anymore. They are providing no use for the current state of the world.

Many people are hesitant to accept new technologies and have concerns for the ethical problems that playing God might have. Some predict that it is possible that we will hold less value to the importance of species conservation and our responsibility to aide them in this manner. Genetic engineering "could undermine the moral lessons of extinction at a critical time in our environmental history" (Minteer). Right now, we have escalated climate change so much so that global temperatures are rising higher and faster than they ever have. Because of this, we are killing off those that are unable to adapt to rapidly changing environments unlike ourselves. It is due to this phenomenon that we are able to understand the negative consequences of our actions, and determine what we should do to help others. But some might claim that if we are able to reverse our negative actions with genetic engineering and bring back critically endangered animals easily, "the success of ...  [the] technology might diminish the desire to protect species" (Martinelli). The ability to grasp such an unremarkable power in our hands will only lead us to believe that we can keep polluting and destroying the environment that we all share, because we can always reverse the effects it has on animal species later. This is almost like eating junk food. I could stuff my face full with chocolate chip cookies, and justify it by saying I will be going to the gym later to reverse the effects of added calories. We can keep cutting down trees and adding to air pollution with the knowledge that whatever we do to harm other species can just be fixed by playing with their DNA. But this may not be the case if genetic engineering keeps spreading in logical uses.

The reason new strategies are being put in place is because humans feel ashamed and guilty. The whole world mourned when one of the last Northern White Rhinos died. Right now all the remaining individuals in the wild are unable to breed. Despite this, they're constantly surrounded by armed men who guard them from poachers. When a lion was wrongfully killed by an American dentist, people rallied to save lions from being illegally killed. This proves that we will do whatever it takes to prevent wild animals for going out for the wrong reasons, so I do not believe we would take genetic engineering for granted.

While the uncertainty of how humans may receive and treat the environment as a result of increased power and ability to conserve those that inhabit the planet with us, it is not right to undermine the fact that we owe it to these creatures to try to save them. We should not stand idle and twiddle our thumbs only because we are scared it might increase our destruction. Robert Lanza, according to Todd Woody of Popular Science, is vice president of Advanced Cell Technoloy (ACT). Woody asks Lanza to think if there were any cases where genetic engineering could be employed to literally save the entire species before it goes extinct. Lanza replies with "quite a few years ago the last remaining bucardo mountain goats were rounded up for a captive breeding program ...  the species is now extinct but could have been saved if we'd had the cloning technology we have today" (Woody). This catastrophic event could have been prevented if genetic engineering was employed, but it was not. Maybe one day we might not hold animals' persistence and struggle to survive as something beautiful and fascinating, but that does not give us the right to let them suffer and die out due to our selfishness. However, it might also go the other way, for if we bring animals back from the brink, we will need to make it worth our while. As it turns out, "the costs and difficulty ... are vastly greater for reversing extinction than for heading it off" (Revive). What this means is even if we have the technology to reverse the damage a species takes, we might still be preoccupied with saving them in other, more traditional means because of the sheer cost for research and execution. With this new, expensive technology, it could be used as a last resort to avoid going into debt and turn our attention to using other techniques as well as developing them to save endangered species. It is common sense that if we try to save these animals, genetic engineering is just one step. It does not mean to completely ignore other methods, but that genetic engineering can go farther than the other methods, and has the opportunity of being more successful. It is still worthwhile to preserve habitat, because we would have living animals (thanks to genetic engineering) that would need somewhere to live and thrive once they are safe and healthy. Genetic engineering is highly important, for a wide variety of endangered species, "facilitated adaptation could turn out to be the only viable remedy" (Thomas). If scientists and animal conservation experts do not act quickly with manipulation of DNA and more, these species will be wiped out for good.

Another concern faced when considering if genetic engineering with respect to cloning is the right direction to go down is the possibility of diseases being introduced that may be dangerous to humans or the rest of the species. Some species may have partially been wiped out due to infectious diseases that had no cure at the time they caught it. This causes risks to other species that may be vulnerable or it could wipe out the same population again if no cure has yet been discovered. The bucardo mountain goats mentioned above "were wiped out by disease" (Woody). If brought back through cloning like Noah was, would that happen again? In this case it seems pointless to bring an animal back only to have it die again for the same reason. The goat is not the only nonliving example of disease being brought back. Like Noah, animals cloned from the tissue of long dead individuals "may become vectors or reservoirs for viruses that can be harmful for other animals" (Martinelli). Vectors or reservoirs are other terms for carriers. Viruses are nonliving organisms, and if an animal from a colder climate dies, the virus could be potentially dangerous for weeks, months, or even years. Those vectors that are pre-exposed to these uncurable illnesses might endanger an entire population. Examples could be the Zika virus, rabies or mad cow disease in humans. All of these diseases originated in other species but spread to humans due to the organisms that carried them. 

Though it is unarguable that bringing back animals who may have become diseased due to a virus might bring back the same contagious disease that killed them, this provides many opportunities for an expansion on modern medicine. Like stated, we as humans are able to catch illnesses from other animals. If a rabid animal bites you, you have to get rabies shots to prevent rabies from developing in you. Though it may not have the same effects, it is dangerous and causes severe health effects on the victim. But, it is because we were introduced to these diseases that we were able to develop a cure for them. Lack of knowledge and experience leads to lack of ability to do something about it. But, exposure and research allows us to develop vaccinations to prevent calamities from occurring. In December, it was revealed that puppies were able to be born after using in vitro fertilization, which is a procedure in which a sperm and egg are manually joined together and then inserted into the female. Scientists were ecstatic, because "dogs share a number of genetic diseases with humans, such as various types of cancer and diabetes" (Main). Because we share a various number of diseases with our four-legged friends, we are able to study the effects of possible new medications on them. After all, "successful treatment of these conditions in dogs could help lead to better treatments in people" (Main). This could lead to a breakthrough in cures for diseases such as cancer and diabetes. When talking about the revival of diseases, it is not just black and white. It is not all terrible, because it allows us to adapt and create new cures that in turn could be tweaked to correct a larger number of diseases with similar viral strains. Not only that, but diseases come back on their own without humans trying to genetically modify organisms. The plague recently came back after years and years of it being gone, without the revival of genetically engineered organisms. When considering this case, there seems to be no more risk of diseases coming back through genetic engineering and wreaking havoc than having them come back naturally, and even if they make a reappearance, they might provide an opportunity for adapting medicines to protect us more than before from similar diseases. 

Genetic engineering and other similar processes provide not only a chance to increase numbers of the species that are facing a large loss, but also provides the possibility of strengthening them and allowing them to adapt to changing environments. One thing that attracts many people to Australia is the Great Barrier Reef. The vibrant, colorful corals provide an awe-inspiring view and also provides a home for many exotic species of fish. But, they are very sensitive creatures, and human disturbances provides an immediate threat to these cherished organisms. If left alone, "Reefs will be reduced to bleached-looking skeletons, vulnerable to disease". This will kill the habitat of numerous varieties of fish, and kill an entire ecosystem. But, because corals are so sensitive to factors such as noise, pollution, and temperature, one coral cannot simply be picked up and dropped somewhere else. Instead, facilitated adaptation might be a reasonable and effective way of heightening their chances of survival in the years to come. Facilitated adaptation is "rescuing populations or species by introducing gene variants that allow them to survive in changing temperatures or different ecological niches", which is perfect for highly sensitive organisms such as corals. " The characteristics that help some reefs survive unusual conditions could allow others to endure climate change", so they are a great candidate to consider when expanding the gene pool (Economist). But, like stated, they're so sensitive to change that relocation is not a simple process, so a surer, experimentally sound process such as genetic engineering in the form of facilitated adaptation should be considered.

A benefit of facilitated adaptation is that it has been proven to work in other species, such as the American chestnut. According to The Guardian, "Scientists have already inserted genes from the Asian chestnut tree into its American cousin to make the latter less susceptible to disease". Facilitated adaptation creates a healthier and hardier genetic gene pool, ensuring the survival of the species on another level. This does not change the species however. It only modifies one gene that's designed to alter the species' tolerance to heat or disease or pollution. That gene might be passed down to offspring, but if it is not right for the species, nature will work it out and those individuals will not survive.  In 2013, Michal A Thomas, a professor of biology, GaW Roemer, a professor in the Department of Fish, Wildlife & Conservation Ecology, C Donlan, who is executive director of Advanced Conservation Strategies, Brett Dickson, president and chief scientist at the Conservation Science Partners and a professor of Earth Science and Environmental Sustainability, Jason Delaney, a research associate in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science at the University of Nevada and finally Marjorie Matocq, who is a biology professor, co-published in nature, an international science journal about the manipulation of genes in order to create a stronger, more diverse gene pool. They claimed that increasing genetic diversity has been attempted with relocation, which reintroduces lost genes into an isolated population. Relocation has worked in several species, such as with a viper species. According to the article, "in an isolated population of the viper Vipera berus in Sweden, the number of inviable offspring produced as a result of inbreeding plummeted when male vipers from a healthy population were introduced" (Thomas). The technique has been proven to be effective, but with an increasing urgency to protect our valuable natural resources, we need to step it up. Relocation can introduce parasites or diseases or maybe the population cannot adapt to the new environment, so gene modification only does minor changes to make the already existing population stronger. Deforestation is not slowing, and neither is the rate at which species are disappearing. If a population is suffering from inability to adapt, scientists could "directly [transfer] specific alleles drawn from a well-adapted population into individuals from a threatened population" (Thomas). This would increase genetic viability more quickly instead finding the right individuals to relocate, moving them, waiting for individuals to find potential mates, produce offspring, and raise them to maturity. The process would shorten significantly if genetic engineering were used as a tool to aid in their conservation. 

Revive and Restore, part of the Long Now Foundation, aims at the genetic rescue of endangered and extinct species. They are an example of an already present and active organization that aims to implement genetic engineering as means of conservation of endangered species. It is not just an idea, but to them is an ongoing process. They describe their methods of preserving species as "sequencing and assembling DNA (ancient, cryo-preserved, and living), bioinformatic analysis, genome editing, creating induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), cross-species cloning, work with avian primordial germ cells, and captive breeding" (Revive). They are specifically targeting the Asian elephants, black-footed ferrets and native Hawaiian birds in order to prevent their disappearance from the planet. 

The black-footed ferret is an exceptional candidate for genetic manipulation and was chosen because the problem they face is "is the continuing decline of genetic variability in the black-footed ferret's gene pool" (Revive). Because so few individuals were left, there was not a wide variety of genes to choose from to prevent damage from inbreeding. In fact, the numbers were so low that genetic engineering became necessary, "because the entire living population [after selective breeding] was descended from only seven founders" (Revive). Selective breeding was used to try to increase population numbers, but did little to increase the diversity in the living individuals. In order to correct the loss of genetic diversity through dwindling numbers, Revive and Restore has implemented a program that "has already gone so far as to pioneer genetic rescue techniques with advanced reproductive technologies: producing ferrets from "cryogenic artificial insemination" using 20-year-old cryopreserved spermatoazoa to fertilize living females" (Revive). They have already increased the genetic diversity by using the old DNA of long-dead ferrets. This is almost like Noah, but instead of being clones, the offspring are genetic mixes of the dead father and living mother. This is a case where genetic engineering again has saved a species from extinction in a way that traditional methods like selective breeding are not enough.

Because of human activities leading to climate change, deforestation, and pollution at unprecedented levels, animal species are quickly suffering. We are causing their numbers to plummet as they are unable to adapt to a human-friendly world. Because we are the cause of their suffering, it is our job to make sure they can live to see another day. In the past, techniques such as relocation, selective breeding, and more have been used to increase population numbers and increase the genetic diversity. But, as their numbers shrink, less differences increase between individuals and the gene pool shrinks. Some animals, such as the giant panda, are finicky and are hard to breed. The task of protecting them becomes more urgent as their timer closes in on the end. 

But, thankfully, over the years, technology has expanded and developed processes and tools that can be used to make a task easier. Genetic engineering is one of these tools. With it, humans can incorporate the genes of a dead animal and use it to reproduce with a living one, something that was unimaginable even when Frankenstein was written. This can increase genetic diversity and thus leading to a hardier population who will be less likely to be wiped out by a disease. Genetic engineering can also bring back or clone those who have died in order to increase population numbers enough. It could give Noah a chance to run through Asia with a herd of his own kind, to find his own mate, and to sire his own young. The process of genetic engineering serves many purposes beyond just increasing numbers, like increasing diversity, strengthening a population, aiding with reproduction, and more. It can also one day be expanded into curing diseases that we might share with our furry friends, such as cancers. Saving one species might also save another species. It is important that we do not lose these key species or the environment will crumble away even quicker. They provide a balance in their habitats, and their disappearance would lead to the disappearance of every other species in a domino effect. The question of whether it is the right option should not even be asked; we are the ones damaging their chances at survival. When we do something wrong, we try to correct it, and animals are living things capable of pain too so we need to help correct the mistake we made. Without our help, these precious species have no chance of making it on their own. Genetic engineering is the only viable option that can quickly save a species on the brink of extinction, and therefore should be considered. 

