I'm not a fan of trying to bring back extinct creatures from the grave without first addressing what's wrong with the world that led to their extinction. It really isn't ethical to start creating creatures just for our entertainment (i.e., keeping them in cages). But reintroduction into the wild is also problematic: either they're now an invasive species, or they're now (still) easy prey.
TL;DR: "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
Too late by a century to worry about that. Extinction is so far advanced. Consider large animals: 50% on earth are the ones we raise to eat. Of the remaining, 46% are ... humans themselves!
That leaves 4% of all earthly animals to be 'wild'. A negligible part of the 'ecology'.
We're not going to put the genie of terraforming (reforming the earth to serve human needs) back in the bottle. The bottle is smashed; the earth is one large human park.
Anyway, still we need to try not to destroy the atmosphere and water because they're critical to human needs and processes. That's reason enough.
It went extinct due to human hunting and invasive species (rats, brought by humans) eating their eggs. While not exactly a solved problem, both of these things have been addressed for other species to help ensure they don't go extinct.
TL;DR: "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”