Source 1- National Geographic
This page on the National Geographic website is basically a hub for all of their articles on de-extinction. It contains analysis for both sides of the debate, and a bit further down the page has links to topics like the method, opinion articles, and some statistical pieces. This makes it a good place to get started on learning about de-extinction, but due to the nature of National Geographic, it doesn't go quite in depth enough.
The science behind de-extinction is not covered heavily, with a general overview article, and a short video being all there is. The video is on a method different to the SCNT one I focus on, but it is accurate enough, if oversimplified. The article goes a bit more in detail on most of the common ways of de-extinction, but again, it lacks in the true depth you'd need to cover the "how" properly. It's also not a true scientific organisation providing the information, so it may be wrong in some aspects.
What it does have going for it though, is solid analysis of both sides of the debate. There are a lot of articles on the pro/con sides of this debate, and they don't lean heavily to either side for the most part. It allows readers to make their own views. This is further boosted by the fact it's language is very clear and easy to understand. Laymen would have a solid grasp on all the major parts of de-extinction just by visiting this page.
As for the trustworthiness of the source, National Geographic has been noted as a reputable publication for many years, and printing falsehoods would tarnish that reputation. It's my belief there should be very few errors in it's facts.
The science behind de-extinction is not covered heavily, with a general overview article, and a short video being all there is. The video is on a method different to the SCNT one I focus on, but it is accurate enough, if oversimplified. The article goes a bit more in detail on most of the common ways of de-extinction, but again, it lacks in the true depth you'd need to cover the "how" properly. It's also not a true scientific organisation providing the information, so it may be wrong in some aspects.
What it does have going for it though, is solid analysis of both sides of the debate. There are a lot of articles on the pro/con sides of this debate, and they don't lean heavily to either side for the most part. It allows readers to make their own views. This is further boosted by the fact it's language is very clear and easy to understand. Laymen would have a solid grasp on all the major parts of de-extinction just by visiting this page.
As for the trustworthiness of the source, National Geographic has been noted as a reputable publication for many years, and printing falsehoods would tarnish that reputation. It's my belief there should be very few errors in it's facts.
Source 2- genome.org
This source is not so much about the de-extinction side of things, but a FAQ of cloning in general. It's website was made by the National Human Genome Research Institute, which is a research institute funded by the US government. It's goal was originally to map out the human genome, but after that was done it's now basically a research institute for all things of that nature.
Due to the fact that it's governmentally funded and a scientific research centre, I think the information provided on the page should be trustworthy. It doesn't provide much detail, but I believe the goal of this page was to educate on a variety of cloning related topics, so giving a general overview of multiple subjects suits this particular page better than going very in depth on just one. Due to this approach, it's wording is clear and easy to understand as well, which befits it as a layman's explanation of cloning.
As for bias, seeing as it is a research institute focused on researching cloning related things, it naturally is pro-cloning, but it maintains a factual demeanour and even looks at some drawbacks to cloning. So even though it is biased, it shouldn't be affecting the facts. If the National Geography page was the starting point to researching de-extinction, this page would be a good starting point to researching cloning techniques in general.
Due to the fact that it's governmentally funded and a scientific research centre, I think the information provided on the page should be trustworthy. It doesn't provide much detail, but I believe the goal of this page was to educate on a variety of cloning related topics, so giving a general overview of multiple subjects suits this particular page better than going very in depth on just one. Due to this approach, it's wording is clear and easy to understand as well, which befits it as a layman's explanation of cloning.
As for bias, seeing as it is a research institute focused on researching cloning related things, it naturally is pro-cloning, but it maintains a factual demeanour and even looks at some drawbacks to cloning. So even though it is biased, it shouldn't be affecting the facts. If the National Geography page was the starting point to researching de-extinction, this page would be a good starting point to researching cloning techniques in general.
Source 3- BBC article
This article is a very recent one, telling us about the completion of the mammoth genome. It has almost no talk of the scientific aspect of how this was achieved, and only very broad statements about what achieving this may mean. Seeing as the one new fact it presents must be true in order to have an article about it, I would think that it's claim of mammoth genome completion is true at the least.
The article itself is mostly a pseudo interview with some scientists working on the project, coupled with a few sentences explanation. A very "news article" like article, which suits it, as it is a news article. Being a news article also means it's yet again marketed to the layman, and as such is still very easy to understand.
A problem with it though, is not only does it lack significant detail, it's also fairly biased. Because it focuses mainly on the talk with the researchers involved, we only really see what the researchers think about the topic, and what this achievement means for their particular research team. It doesn't examine what other things could be done with this completed genome, and focuses solely on what the next step will most likely be for these researchers.
Overall, whilst it provides some nice insight into what current researchers are thinking about de-extinction, as well as a new breakthrough, I don't think this article offers much as a source.
The article itself is mostly a pseudo interview with some scientists working on the project, coupled with a few sentences explanation. A very "news article" like article, which suits it, as it is a news article. Being a news article also means it's yet again marketed to the layman, and as such is still very easy to understand.
A problem with it though, is not only does it lack significant detail, it's also fairly biased. Because it focuses mainly on the talk with the researchers involved, we only really see what the researchers think about the topic, and what this achievement means for their particular research team. It doesn't examine what other things could be done with this completed genome, and focuses solely on what the next step will most likely be for these researchers.
Overall, whilst it provides some nice insight into what current researchers are thinking about de-extinction, as well as a new breakthrough, I don't think this article offers much as a source.
Source 4- Dailymail Article
The facts and information provided within this news article align with the information I had previously gathered about SCNT and cloning. It doesn't relate to de-extinction directly, but I believe the information within helps answer quite a few questions, as well as raiding some interesting new ones.
First, how it's science holds up. It goes into a bit more detail on SCNT than the National Geographic and bbc articles, and in comparison to other sources it holds up accurately. It does suffer a bit from what I'm now calling "Laymanitis" wherein it panders to the layman due to the nature of the publication. It's a good thing though, as it allows the science to be easily accessible.
As for it's credibility, the Dailymail is a tabloid newspaper, and a bit less trustworthy because of it, but even if it does overemphasize and exaggerate in some of their other articles, the key bare bones facts it provides in this one check out. I think it does do that a bit though, as it goes on about how unethical it would be to apply this to humans, and barely touches upon what benefits it may bring.
I would trust the facts presented in this article, but I wouldn't use the opinions stated in it as unbiased opinions on the topic of cloning in general.
First, how it's science holds up. It goes into a bit more detail on SCNT than the National Geographic and bbc articles, and in comparison to other sources it holds up accurately. It does suffer a bit from what I'm now calling "Laymanitis" wherein it panders to the layman due to the nature of the publication. It's a good thing though, as it allows the science to be easily accessible.
As for it's credibility, the Dailymail is a tabloid newspaper, and a bit less trustworthy because of it, but even if it does overemphasize and exaggerate in some of their other articles, the key bare bones facts it provides in this one check out. I think it does do that a bit though, as it goes on about how unethical it would be to apply this to humans, and barely touches upon what benefits it may bring.
I would trust the facts presented in this article, but I wouldn't use the opinions stated in it as unbiased opinions on the topic of cloning in general.
Source 5- Asia Pacific Economics Blog
I'd say this website has a lot of good points to bring about the topics/issues surrounding de-extinction, and covers them in a fairly neutral manner. If the text itself had some more detail on how de-extinction works, it would be better off for it.
A problem it has though, is lack of depth. It brings up a few very interesting points for both sides of the debate, but only goes into it with one or two lines. It's not a real analysis of the point. This allows readers to make up their own minds, but makes it a bit lacking in information. Furthermore, the article itself doesn't bring much information on de-extinction's processes. There is a video at the bottom of the page, but I feel it comes too late, as well as videos being less informative than text.
It's not lacking in the analysis of both sides, to the point that I'm comfortable saying it is trying to present an unbiased opinion, which is good. The problem may be where this information is coming from. The article is not authored, so the source is basically just "Asia Pacific Economics Blog". This is not good because it is not a scientific blog and the anonymity of it means we have no idea who wrote it.
However, the points it brings up are both logical and unbiased, so I'd use this as a source for arguments on both sides of the debate on de-extinction.
A problem it has though, is lack of depth. It brings up a few very interesting points for both sides of the debate, but only goes into it with one or two lines. It's not a real analysis of the point. This allows readers to make up their own minds, but makes it a bit lacking in information. Furthermore, the article itself doesn't bring much information on de-extinction's processes. There is a video at the bottom of the page, but I feel it comes too late, as well as videos being less informative than text.
It's not lacking in the analysis of both sides, to the point that I'm comfortable saying it is trying to present an unbiased opinion, which is good. The problem may be where this information is coming from. The article is not authored, so the source is basically just "Asia Pacific Economics Blog". This is not good because it is not a scientific blog and the anonymity of it means we have no idea who wrote it.
However, the points it brings up are both logical and unbiased, so I'd use this as a source for arguments on both sides of the debate on de-extinction.