This December an international team of scientists are taking a page from Jurassic Park and making it a reality. Having taken DNA samples from extinct Galapagos Island tortoises preserved at the American Museum of Natural History and the Museum of Comparative Zoology they are now looking to bring the species back from over 100 years of being extinct.

Traveling to Isabela Island, the largest in the Galapagos chain, they will spend three weeks collecting genetic material from a distantly-related and native tortoise species. They will be looking for individuals sharing a high percentage of genetic info with the extinct species from Floreana Island.

Those meeting the required criteria will then become part of a captive breeding program. Scientists then hope to breed successive generations to one day obtain “a nearly purebred form” of the Floreana’s tortoise.

I have only one question. Why? Why would we want to bring back an extinct species of tortoise? The oceans are worse off now than they ever were before. Why would an extinct species of tortoise even want to be around now? Chances are that if they were never hunted to extinction in the first place, they would still be on the brink of extinction today anyway.

On Oct. 6, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List released a report detailing how one in four of the world’s mammal species — there are 5,487 known species — are now at risk of extinction. This is a staggering number.

A figure like that should not be treated lightly considering that the IUCN list is compiled by 1,800 experts from around the world involving 130 countries. The World Wildlife Fund is now asking governments to address habitat loss, pollution and climate change today.

In a publication also released Oct. 6, Dr. Sybille Klenzendorf, WWF managing director is quoted as saying “Unless we address these threats immediately the Red List will only get longer.” The Red List is the global conservation status for both plant and animal species.

And yet, scientists are traveling to the Galapagos to revive a species that has been extinct since the 1800s. It doesn’t make sense and it just doesn’t add up. Their efforts would be better spent helping to stabilize the loss of those species in peril right now.

In February of this year the first ever comprehensive map of Earth’s marine areas was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American Association of for the Advancement of Science. It shows that 41 percent of all ocean environments across the globe are heavily impacted by human activity.

It also revealed that no area has been left untouched. Those least impacted are, not surprisingly, located near the poles. Last time I checked, neither the North nor the South Poles were suitable locations to release captive bred tropical tortoises.

The WWF states that “80 percent of marine pollution comes from land-based activities.” Even if a particular habitat is protected, such as the Galapagos Islands, which are not only a World Heritage Site but also a marine reserve, ocean currents know no such boundaries.

Garbage generated in one area, once it enters a waterway, can travel to other areas hundreds of miles away. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency refers to plastics as a main form of marine debris. Sea turtles, tortoises, seabirds and other marine mammals can easily become tangled in plastic debris or even ingest plastic materials which can often look similar to natural foods.

But the scientists justify their actions by claiming that their efforts bring attention to the “growing and mounting problem of biological diversity loss.” Considering that the Floreana Island tortoise went extinct 100 years ago, I am not sure that is representative of the same “biological diversity loss” that is occurring today on a daily basis.

Adding more species to what is already a fragile setting seems to further compound the issue. If and once they are brought back who is to say they would be able to survive anyway? Certainly the habitat has changed in their absence over the last century — food sources and availability, too, perhaps. Maybe their presence would only disrupt things further.

Until we do something to stabilize habitats around the world it seems pointless to bring species back from extinction. Not only is it a waste of money, energy, resources and scientific knowledge, but it brings no justice to the hundreds of species around the world fighting for survival today.

— Erin Mastre is a graduate student in landscape architecture from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.