By Mark Addis, Professor of Philosophy at the School of English, Birmingham City University

Russian and Japanese scientists are attempting to bring the woolly mammoth back from extinction. There are very good scientific reasons why this is likely to be unsuccessful. However, the possibility itself raises some interesting ethical questions. Most people find the idea of resurrecting an extinct species troubling because of the Jurassic Park type thoughts which it prompts. It is worth distinguishing between concerns about the ability to safely handle dangerous previously extinct animals and moral problems about resurrecting them. A common moral objection is that the animals are extinct and that to become involved in cloning them would be to play God or go against nature in some sense. However, defending this view is not quite as simple as it looks.

All kinds of genetically modified crops and animals, such as Dolly the cloned sheep, exist. The only difference between these cases and that of cloning a mammoth is the extent of the modification which leads into what philosophers call a slippery slope argument. These arguments work by taking a reasonable position and suggesting that an extension of it is also reasonable. They repeat this process until an extreme position is arrived at but each of the steps involved in getting there is reasonable. Applying the slippery slope idea to genetic modification allows the extent of acceptable modification to be extended further and further. So if you have enjoyed some genetically modified corn recently you have no reason to object to a cloned woolly mammoth. Working out what might be wrong with this way of thinking is certainly tricky and quite possibly a mammoth task!