Wildlife and ARTs

Alongside amplified discourse about the planetary perils posed by climate change, public awareness is also growing about the related environmental phenomena of biodiversity loss and species extinction.The role of anthropogenic activity in producing present rates of species loss, however, is still unfamiliar to many, impeding effective action to curb the human-induced causes of species decline.It may also be that greater knowledge of how anthropogenic activities entail harms to animals will not make a difference.An inescapable case in point: the human consumption of animals is projected to increase worldwide despite the clear evidence linking intensive farming of animals with the warming of the planet and devastating harms to animals, including wild animals.Against this backdrop where root causes of species decline are difficult to address and comprehensive and long-term solutions prove elusive, we nonetheless see conservation efforts that try to make a difference.These methods include rescuing individual animals from immediate peril, rehabilitating individual animals until robust enough to survive, and even assisted migration of entire animal communities.Methods also include reproductive assistance.The latter includes the more invasive in vitro techniques in female mammals involving ova extraction and embryo transfer resulting in possible pregnancy and gestational complications but also the risks, pain, and bodily violation that attend electroejaculation, artificial insemination, and hormone treatment.Cyropreservation, cloning, captivity, and genome sequencing are also common.The harnessing of assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) for species conservation and even revival enjoys robust support in conservation biology circles.Where criticism exists, it mostly points to the failure of ARTs to deliver on the spectacular species-saving results initially imagined and to the barriers blocking success.As layered as the debate already is, both supporters