If you could, would you do it?

 

What are some things we need to consider before doing something like this?

 

If there is no diversity in the gene pool of the extinct animal, would scientists be able to increase the mutation rate of the cloned animal (e.f. Mammoth, neanderthal, Tasmanian tiger, dodo etc.) to increase their genetic diversity and thereby improve their genetic fitness overtime?

BTW, we already had a somewhat similar thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83094-the-ethics-of-de-extinction/

No, doing so could destroy an ecosystem. As much as a spieces going extinct from an ecosystem if not more so.  It would be the same thing as introduction a exotic spieces into an ecosystem. I.e. Cane toads in Australia 

Absolutely it is ethical in a general sense, although I suppose each case should be considered individually.

I don't understand the fear many people have to doing something new. We've been pushing the envelope since we used a stick to scratch our backs instead of just letting it itch.

Beavers have been reintroduced into Scotland. I believe a handful of bird species have also been reintroduced. There are moves to reintroduce wolves and lynx. These efforts to restore a recent, or damaged ecology are, I think, ethical. Attempts to restore damaged ecologies by cloning species that are now extinct would be analogous to this and would, therefore, be ethical.

I am less certain about attempts to clone species whose environment is no longer extant and which would therefore be confined to laboratories, zoos or small nature reserves. That said, I really miss the ammonites!