
Dire wolves and woolly mammoths: Why scientists are worried about de-extinction
The creation of three "dire wolf" pups has raised hopes that it may be possible to resurrect extinct animals. But some scientists have grave concerns.
When news broke that Colossal Biosciences, a Dallas-based biotechnology company, had resurrected three extinct dire wolves, the internet reacted with awe. It is a species that last roamed the earth some 13,000 years ago, but has found recent fame thanks to Game of Thrones, which features fictional dire wolves.
The story was stoked further when a photograph of Game of Thrones author George R R Martin holding one of the adorable white pups was released. "I have to say the rebirth of the direwolf has stirred me as no scientific news has since Neil Armstrong [walked] on the moon," Martin wrote on his blog.
Martin, who is an investor in Colossal, added that more extinct species were on the way, including the woolly mammoth, Tasmanian tiger and dodo.
Colossal – which is currently valued at $10bn (£7.6bn) and is backed by high-profile donors such as Chris Hemsworth, Paris Hilton and the CIA – boldly states on its website that it's "going to fix" the problem of extinction.
According to Matt James, the company's chief animal officer, the aim is not to create a Jurassic Park-like zoo full of extinct animals, but to reintroduce lost species back into the habitats they once occupied. Once those animals are settled in, Colossal expects them to exert positive change on their habitats. "We're trying to focus on species that can have cascading effects on an ecosystem to improve stability, lift biodiversity and maybe even help with climate change buffering," James tells the BBC.
De-extinction has been talked about for decades. But Colossal's three dire wolves – which are actually grey wolves that possess 20 edited genes that are meant to give them dire wolf-like features – represent the most serious effort to date to make that lofty vision a reality.
In the wake of the dire wolf announcement, however, many scientists have criticised Colossal's approach. They see efforts to bring back long-extinct species as costly wastes of resources and a distraction from the significant work that's needed to save still-living species.
The BBC spoke with several experts in fields ranging from conservation biology to paleontology about efforts to resurrect species from extinction and whether they are likely to achieve the goals that Colossal hopes.
Chief among the concerns raised was that claiming it is possible to bring back extinct species may actually lead to more existing species being lost. It could give politicians and industries the idea that damage to the environment can be fixed by resurrecting species.
Such a message could be particularly damaging at a time when the US is withdrawing from international agreements on climate change and revoking measures intended protect the environment and wildlife, says David Shiffman, a marine conservation biologist and independent consultant based in Washington, DC.
"It's beyond irresponsible for these people [Colossal] to be claiming some sort of conservation victory in this environment," he says.
This worry was quickly reinforced when Doug Burgum, the US Secretary of the Interior – who the Colossal team met with in advance of their dire wolf announcement – praised the company's work on X as a new "bedrock for modern species conservation". Burgum also criticised the ineffectiveness of the "endangered species list" – presumably a reference to the Red List of Threatened Species, drawn up by the International Union of Conservation (IUCN) or the list of threatened & endangered species maintained by branches of the US Government – thanks to what he characterised as a focus on regulation. "Since the dawn of our nation, it has been innovation – not regulation – that has spawned American greatness," he wrote.
Super-cool science
Biodiversity is under a seemingly endless onslaught of threats, virtually all of which are imposed by humans. The leading reasons, according to the IUCN, are habitat destruction, invasive species, overexploitation from fishing and hunting, illegal wildlife trade, pollution and climate change.
Colossal claims that its de-extinction work will directly benefit conservation. But the company needs to tie its work to "ameliorating, alleviating or reversing something that's on that list" of threats to biodiversity, says Kent Redford, former director of the Wildlife Conservation Society who now works as an independent conservation consultant in Portland, Maine.
While Colossal's de-extinction work is "super-cool science," he continues, he does not see it alleviating any of the threats highlighted by the IUCN.
Colossal sees things otherwise. The company states on its website that woolly mammoths reintroduced to the Arctic, for example, will increase those habitats' resilience to climate change through their foraging behavior, which they say will help to keep carbon locked in permafrost in the ground. By scraping away snow, the company says, mammoths will expose the soil below to cold air, causing it to stay frozen.
However, Nitin Sekar, a conservation scientist with the Asian elephant specialist group at the IUCN, says he has struggled to find evidence in the scientific literature to support this claim. One study comparing carbon storage in the Arctic tundra to taiga forest found the soil in areas covered in trees could store nearly twice as much carbon overall. Only slightly more was found in the permafrost of the tundra than in the taiga. Nor could he find anything else about how mammoths might have affected carbon in general.
Some research on existing species of arctic herbivores suggests that they can reduce permafrost thawing. One scoping study by researchers at the University of Oxford does point to the role mammoths had on the climate during the Pleistocene and suggests bison and horses could replicate some of that role. But those species need to be maintained at high densities – where they are fenced, fed and managed by humans – to have any protective effect. The Arctic ecosystem is also different today than it was in the Pleistocene, so it is also hard to say whether mammoth hybrids would have that same effect on today's landscape as species like caribou and reindeer.
There could be other ways that mammoths affect carbon levels. As temperatures increase, the act of trampling and scraping away snow could actually accelerate permafrost melting by exposing it to the Sun – an effect that some research suggests is already happening in wet lowlands in the Arctic.
"Overall, with the data we have now, it's just impossible to know how mammoths affected their environment millennia ago, or how the mammoth-elephant hybrids will behave in our warmer future," Sekar says. "It seems like a strange thing to gamble on in the face of an existential crisis, given the alternatives."
James calls for more research to resolve these questions and show "direct links and causation in a way that can help to bring the rest of the scientific community along on this journey".
Dire wolves and woolly mammoths were driven extinct by the complex forces of a changing planet, not just by human activities. For species that humans are responsible for annihilating, though, simply bringing them back does not help to address the threats that pushed them to extinction in the first place, says Corinne Kendall, programme director for Southern Africa at the Peregrine Fund, a non-profit organisation that aims to conserve birds of prey around the world.
Modern conservationists recognise this and are increasingly focused on landscape-level solutions rather than saving a particular favourite species, Kendall adds.
"That's what's missing in the way Colossal is approaching this," she says. "If you only address the genetics and technology side of things, it's interesting from a scientific discovery standpoint, but you're creating the trees without the forest."
Julie Meachen, a vertebrate paleontologist and morphologist at Des Moines University in Iowa, believes, however, that the genetic techniques Colossal used to create its dire wolves are applicable to conservation. The company is also exploring ways to help still-living species such as the northern white rhino, elephants and endangered pigeons, she points out. "These techniques could be applied to any species suffering from genetic diversity loss and to combat inbreeding or genetic bottlenecks in low population sizes," she says.
"I think the conservation work that Colossal is doing is far more important than the de-extinction work, but this conservation work does not get the same press coverage as the flashy de-extinction part," she adds. "That is unfortunate."
James at Colossal agrees that de-extinction technologies are just "one piece of a very complex puzzle" that must also include things like habitat protection. But he says that attention-grabbing headlines about extinct species being brought back to life can act like "a giant ship" pulling "all these other projects in its wake".
Nature and nurture
It is also important to be clear about what Colossal is actually able to achieve. It is unlikely to ever be possible to truly resurrect long-gone species like dire wolves or woolly mammoths, say scientists not involved with the company. Tissue samples from animals that have been extinct for tens of thousands of years lack the intact cells needed for traditional cloning techniques, says Jacquelyn Gill, a paleoecologist at the University of Maine. "What Colossal is engaging in is genetic modification of modern species to give them physical characteristics to make them look like extinct species."
This in itself is a significant technical achievement, argues Colossal and its supporters.
In the case of the dire wolves, the three puppies it managed to breed are in reality "genetically modified grey wolves", say researchers. Essentially the genome of modern wolves was edited to replicate small segments of ancient DNA obtained from the fossilised remains of dire wolves. They are, the company admits, grey wolves with dire wolf characteristics.
But scientists have even questioned some of those characteristics.It's unlikely, for example, that dire wolves would have been white, but Colossal chose to make its animals white "because of popular conceptions from Game of Thrones", Gill says. "This was an aesthetic choice, not a biological or scientific one."
Even if Colossal did bring back animals that very closely resembled Ice Age species, they still would not be the same as the bona fide ones that lived thousands of years ago because the Pleistocene ecosystem they inhabited no longer exists, Meachen says. "A dire wolf or any other species is not only its genes, but also its environment and all the other species living there."
Colossal says it has no plans of releasing dire wolves into the wild. But it does aspire to eventually repopulate parts of the Arctic with woolly mammoths. This would require engineering a lot of baby mammoth proxies, which the company plans to do by using Asian or African elephants as surrogates.
In the West especially, though, some people are starting to question the ethics of whether elephants – extremely intelligent, social and sentient beings – should be kept in captivity at all, much less be experimented on, Sekar says. Asian elephants in modern zoo facilities also frequently suffer from infertility and lose their calves to stillbirths and infanticides twice as often as elephants in semi-wild conditions, he says, while mothers deeply mourn dead calves. "Are we really ok putting elephants through that so we can have these visually entertaining animals that aren't even real mammoths?" asks Sekar.
James says that Colossal will have many quality control steps to ensure things go well for the elephants, and that the company will also be working with leading animal welfare experts to "avoid potential welfare pitfalls ahead".
Lack of returns
Colossal has not disclosed how much it invested in the dire wolf programme – but it's likely in the many millions of dollars. While costs of new technologies do eventually go down with scale, even if de-extinction does get cheaper, it will still be orders of magnitude more affordable and effective to stop species from going extinct in the first place, Shiffman says. Moreover, if the original drivers of extinction are not addressed, then de-extinct species could quickly become re-extinct, he warns.
While Redford acknowledges that money is not fungible, if Colossal's primary goal really is conservation, then he says he has a hard time viewing its work on de-extinction as being "the right investment to make".
For every extinct species that Colossal is bringing back, however, James says the company is also investing in a surviving endangered species. Work is being done to introduce greater genetic diversity to populations of endangered red wolves in the US, for example, and to engineer elephants to be resistant to herpes virus.
But while red wolves do have some issues with genetic diversity, their biggest threats are road collisions and human persecution, Kendall says. Without addressing "how the animal is going to survive on the ground", the genetic component becomes "kind of irrelevant".
Herpes also only kills a fraction of the number of wild Asian elephants each year compared to those killed by humans, says Sekar, who is planning to publish data from the Indian government about causes of elephant deaths. Around eight wild elephants die per year of herpes compared to around 100 killed in some way by humans, he says.
Colossal could leverage its synthetic biology expertise in ways that are clear wins for the planet, experts say. Crops that are engineered to more efficiently take up nitrogen, for example, could be a huge boon for reducing the steep climate costs of nitrogen fertiliser and lessening the major dead zones that its runoffs cause in water bodies. Finding ways to engineer high quality animal proteins for human consumption could, likewise, be a game-changer for alleviating the many environmental and animal welfare concerns that plague the livestock industry, the experts say.
"Colossal clearly has very talented biologists on their team," Sekar says. "If they were to turn their attention to addressing problems like that, they could really be the heroes of conservation."
--
For essential climate news and hopeful developments to your inbox, sign up to the Future Earth newsletter, while The Essential List delivers a handpicked selection of features and insights twice a week.
For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Metro
15 hours ago
- Metro
Sir David Attenborough almost killed by faulty scuba diving equipment
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Sir David Attenborough has detailed an unsettling incident in which he nearly drowned when scuba diving. The natural historian and broadcaster, 99, first appeared on screens in the 1950s, when he presented natural history programmes including Coelacanth and Zoo Quest for the BBC. His TV credits now span eight decades, with Sir David since presenting shows including Wildlife on One, The Blue Planet and Planet Earth, as well as the newly released film Ocean. However, he's now recalled a moment early in his career when he came close to a deadly situation. Speaking to Prince William at an event to promote his new documentary Ocean, Sir David was presented with an open-circuit helmet. Picking it up and putting it on his head, he spoke about testing a scuba diving outfit while filming on the Great Barrier Reef in 1957. 'When I put mine on for the first time I suddenly felt water and thought, 'this can't be right'. But by the time the water got about there I thought, 'I'm sure this is not right',' he said. 'Of course, you've got this thing screwed on top of you and you can't breathe or make yourself heard. I was saying 'get it off me'.' Sir David then spoke about the director leading the documentary initially refusing to take his concerns seriously. 'He grabbed it and said it was fine, but I again said there was a fault, and he put it on, and I'm happy to say, he went underwater and came up even faster than I did, because there was actually a fault on the thing,' he added. During the discussion Sir David also described his first dive as a 'sensory overload' and commented on how the reefs he first visited decades ago had now been devastated. 'The awful thing is that it's hidden from you and from me and most people,' he said. 'The thing which I was appalled by when I first saw the shots taken for this film, is that what we have done to the deep ocean floor is just unspeakably awful.' 'I mean, if you did anything remotely like it on land, everybody would be up in arms. If this film does anything, if it just shifts public awareness, it'll be very, very important, and I only hope that people who see it will recognise that something must be done before we destroy this great treasure.' The pair spoke as part of the promotional launch for Ocean, which sees Sir David 'drawing on a lifetime of experience to reveal Earth's most spectacular underwater habitats, showing that we're in the greatest age of Ocean discovery and highlighting its vital importance'. Sir David said he hoped the film could 'expose something new' and encourage viewers to act to save the destruction of the ocean. Despite his indelible impact on the world and environmentalism, last year his producer Mike Gunton told Metro Sir David hated being called a 'national treasure'. More Trending 'He hates it, by the way,' he said. 'I say hates it… If anybody says he's a national treasure, he sort of slightly raises his eyebrows and says, 'Really?' That's a generational thing.' When it was noted Sir David's work is of far greater importance than a title, Mike responded: 'You've hit the nail on the head.' View More » Ocean with David Attenborough is now screening in cinemas nationwide, and airs tonight, Sunday, June 8 at 8pm on National Geographic and is streaming on Disney Plus too. Got a story? If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@ calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you. MORE: Full list of the lavish presents Royals have received since 2020 MORE: Royals arrive at VE Day 2025 service at Westminster Abbey


Daily Record
21 hours ago
- Daily Record
How to catch rare Strawberry Moon which won't be seen again until 2043
June's full moon will grace the sky next week and break several night sky records. Scotland's amateur stargazers have seen a range of cosmic events already this year, including several sightings of the Northern Lights. But this week will see a super-rare Strawberry Moon light up the night sky, in a phenomenon that won't be seen again until 2043. While the full moon occurs roughly every month, when the moon has repeated another lunar cycle, there's something particularly special about June's full moon this year. So what is the Strawberry Moon, and why is it so exciting this year? The Strawberry Moon will grace our skies this week, on June 11. Here's all the information you need to make the most of this rare celestial event. What is the Strawberry Moon? The June full moon is referred to as the Strawberry Moon, due to its association with summer and therefore strawberry season. Each of the monthly full Moons has a nickname that relates to what's going on in nature during that particular month, according to BBC Sky at Night. The full Moon in February is usually known as the Snow Moon, while the July full Moon is known as the Buck Moon- as it's the period where bucks (male deer) grow their antlers. The term 'Strawberry Moon' is said to have originated from Native American tribes, according to the BBC, in particular the Algonquin tribe. This full moon marked the beginning of strawberry season in northeastern parts of North America. But despite its name, it won't appear strawberry bright red or pink, so don't be disappointed! However, the June full moon sits particularly low in the sky, and its closeness to the horizon can sometimes give it a reddish glow. Why is the Strawberry Moon special this year? While the Strawberry Moon is usually the lowest full moon of the year, it hasn't appeared so low in the sky since 2006, and won't be again until 2043. This is because of an event that occurs once every 18.6 years, known as the 'major lunar standstill'. Across the moon's nearly 20-year-long cycle, it follows a tilted orbit around Earth. Major and minor lunar standstills occur when the moon rises and sets at its most extreme points on the horizon, appearing unusually low or high in the sky. During the Strawberry Moon, Earth will be approaching its farthest distance from the Sun in its orbit. The moon will also be as far from the Sun as it can possibly be in its orbit around Earth, in one of the furthest full moons from the sun of the year. While the moon is officially full on June Wednesday, June 11, it will be visible close to Antares, meaning Mars' rival, which is the brightest star in the Scorpio constellation in the nights leading up to the full moon. On Monday, June 9, the moon will be visible to the right of the ultra-bright star, at around 10pm, according to BBC Sky at Night. On 10 June, the moon will appear to the left of Antares, but remember, it'll be low in the sky, so to see it will require a clear horizon. By 11 June, the moon will be in the constellation Sagittarius, even further left of Mars' rival. When can you see the Strawberry Moon? To catch this low-down moon, you'll need a low, southern horizon, unobstructed by trees or buildings. But when will you have the best chance of catching it? The Strawberry Moon will rise on June 11 at 10.46pm BST, and reach its full phase at 8.44am BST. With sunrise at around 4.45am on June 11, it will already be light when it reaches its full lunar phase. The best time to see the Strawberry Moon will be at dusk on Tuesday (June 10), and the Moon will appear full through both Tuesday and Wednesday night. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.


Daily Mirror
3 days ago
- Daily Mirror
Japanese rover smashes into moon in fresh disaster for embattled space company
Japanese company ispace has declared a second failure in a bid for its lunar lander to touchdown on the moon after communication was lost less than two minutes before the scheduled grounding A lunar lander from a Japanese company crashed while attempting a touchdown on the moon in the latest casualty in the commercial rush to the moon and the second failure for the same company. The Tokyo-based company ispace declared the mission a failure several hours after communication was lost with the lander. Flight controllers scrambled to gain contact, but were met with only silence and said they were concluding the mission. Communications ceased less than two minutes before the spacecraft's scheduled landing on the moon with a mini rover. Until then, the descent from lunar orbit seemed to be going well. CEO and founder Takeshi Hakamada apologized to everyone who contributed to the mission, the second lunar strikeout for ispace. Two years ago, the company's first moonshot ended in a crash landing, giving rise to the name 'Resilience' for its successor lander. Resilience carried a rover with a shovel to gather lunar dirt as well as a Swedish artist's toy-size red house for placement on the moon's dusty surface. Company officials said it was too soon to know whether the same problem doomed both missions. This is the second time that we were not able to land. So we really have to take it very seriously,' Hakamada told reporters. He stressed that the company would press ahead with more lunar missions. A preliminary analysis indicates the laser system for measuring the altitude did not work as planned, and the lander descended too fast, officials said. 'Based on these circumstances, it is currently assumed that the lander likely performed a hard landing on the lunar surface,' the company said in a written statement. Moon missions had previously been the preserve of governments but it became a target of private outfits in 2019, with more flops than wins along the way. Launched in January from Florida on a long, roundabout journey, Resilience entered lunar orbit last month. It shared a SpaceX ride with Firefly Aerospace's Blue Ghost, which reached the moon faster and became the first private entity to successfully land there in March. Another US company, Intuitive Machines, arrived at the moon a few days after Firefly. But the tall, spindly lander face-planted in a crater near the moon's south pole and was declared dead within hours. Resilience was targeting the top of the moon, a less treacherous place than the shadowy bottom. The ispace team chose a flat area with few boulders in Mare Frigoris or Sea of Cold, a long and narrow region full of craters and ancient lava flows that stretches across the near side's northern tier. Plans had called for the 7.5-feet Resilience to beam back pictures within hours and for the lander to lower the piggybacking rover onto the lunar surface this weekend. Made of carbon fibre-reinforced plastic with four wheels, ispace's European-built rover — named Tenacious — sported a high-definition camera to scout out the area and a shovel to scoop up some lunar dirt for NASA. The rover, weighing just 5kgs, was going to stick close to the lander, going in circles at a speed of less than two centimetres per second. It was capable of venturing up to two-thirds of a mile from the lander and should be operational throughout the two-week mission, the period of daylight. Besides science and tech experiments, there was an artistic touch. The rover held a tiny, Swedish-style red cottage with white trim and a green door, dubbed the Moonhouse by creator Mikael Genberg, for placement on the lunar surface. Minutes before the attempted landing, Hakamada assured everyone that ispace had learned from its first failed mission. 'Engineers did everything they possibly could' to ensure success this time, he said. He considered the latest moonshot 'merely a steppingstone' to its bigger lander launching by 2027 with NASA involvement. Ispace, like other businesses, does not have 'infinite funds' and cannot afford repeated failures, Jeremy Fix, chief engineer for ispace's US subsidiary, said at a conference last month. While not divulging the cost of the current mission, company officials said it's less than the first one which exceeded £74million. Two other US companies are aiming for moon landings by year's end: Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Astrobotic Technology. Astrobotic's first lunar lander missed the moon altogether in 2024 and came crashing back through Earth's atmosphere. For decades, governments competed to get to the moon. Only five countries have pulled off successful robotic lunar landings: Russia, the US, China, India and Japan. Of those, only the US has landed people on the moon: 12 NASA astronauts from 1969 through 1972. NASA expects to send four astronauts around the moon next year. That would be followed a year or more later by the first lunar landing by a crew in more than a half-century, with SpaceX's Starship providing the lift from lunar orbit all the way down to the surface. China also has moon landing plans for its own astronauts by 2030.