TOEFL Integrated Writing

📖 Reading Passage

The concept of 'de-extinction'—bringing extinct species back to life through genetic engineering—has gained significant attention in recent years. Proponents argue that this technology could restore biodiversity and rectify past human-caused extinctions. However, a more cautious approach suggests that de-extinction is not only impractical but also ethically problematic. First, the genetic material required for de-extinction is often incomplete or degraded. For species like the woolly mammoth, DNA recovered from permafrost is fragmented, and scientists would need to fill gaps with DNA from modern relatives, such as elephants, resulting in a hybrid rather than a true replica of the original species. Second, even if a species were successfully revived, its reintroduction into modern ecosystems could have unforeseen consequences. For example, the passenger pigeon once played a role in forest dynamics, but today's forests have changed dramatically; releasing these birds might disrupt existing ecological balances and threaten current species. Third, the resources devoted to de-extinction could be better spent on conserving living species. With limited funding for biodiversity, channeling millions of dollars into resurrecting a few species—while hundreds of existing species face imminent extinction—represents a misallocation of scarce conservation resources. Thus, despite its allure, de-extinction is a misguided priority that fails to address the urgent needs of present-day biodiversity.

🎧 Listening Lecture

The reading presents a skeptical view of de-extinction, but its arguments are flawed and overlook recent advances and ethical nuances. First, while DNA degradation is a challenge, new techniques like CRISPR and synthetic biology allow scientists to reconstruct genomes with increasing precision. For the woolly mammoth, researchers are not aiming for a perfect clone but for a 'mammoth-like' elephant adapted to cold climates, which could help restore Arctic grasslands. This hybrid, while not identical, serves an ecological purpose, and the reading's insistence on exact replication misses the point of functional restoration. Second, the claim about ecological disruption is speculative. Ecologists can conduct controlled experiments and modeling to assess impacts before release. Furthermore, the passenger pigeon's original role in creating forest gaps could actually benefit certain plant species that are now declining due to lack of disturbance. Rather than causing harm, reintroducing such keystone species might enhance ecosystem health. Third, the argument about resource misallocation is a false dichotomy. De-extinction research often develops technologies—like gene editing and cryopreservation—that directly aid conservation of living species. For instance, CRISPR is being used to engineer disease resistance in endangered amphibians. Thus, funding de-extinction is not a diversion but an investment with shared benefits. In conclusion, the reading's objections are based on outdated assumptions and fail to recognize the potential of this emerging field.