Coverage of Colossal's Dire Wolf De-Extinction
The announcement of the world's first de-extinct dire wolves generated substantial media coverage, with outlets bringing different perspectives to this groundbreaking scientific achievement. From science-focused publications to mainstream news organizations, the story captured widespread attention and sparked conversations about de-extinction technology and its implications. First Reactions: Between Wonder and Skepticism
When Colossal Biosciences announced in April 2025 that they had successfully brought back dire wolves , media reactions blended amazement with careful examination of the scientific claims.
Rolling Stone magazine ran the headline '12,000 Years Later, Dire Wolves Are Back,' featuring an interview with author George R.R. Martin to contextualize the scientific achievement alongside the dire wolf's pop culture fame. The magazine described seeing the ivory-furred pups via video as 'both adorable and awe-inspiring, noting their pointed snouts and golden eyes that harken back to Ice Age hunters.'
Complex Media took an enthusiastic approach, declaring that 'dire wolves are officially back' and marveling that 'these are actual, giant, genetically accurate, scientifically verified dire wolves walking the Earth again' – not CGI or fantasy, but 'science that reads like science fiction.' The publication described the achievement as mind-bending, quoting: 'Wait, this isn't just a GoT promo? Nope. This is very real,' and calling it perhaps 'the most bonkers science story of the year.' Science-Focused Coverage
TIME magazine provided one of the most in-depth scientific examinations of the achievement. Science editor Jeffrey Kluger, who was granted access to meet the Colossal pups at a secure location, detailed the 'deft genetic engineering' behind the de-extinction in a feature titled 'The Science Behind the Return of the Dire Wolf.'
TIME underscored how Colossal's team 'deciphered the dire wolf genome, rewrote the genetic code of the common gray wolf to match it, and…brought Romulus, Remus, and their sister Khaleesi into the world.' The article also highlighted the broader significance: Colossal's success suggests that other extinct animals might soon follow, and it demonstrates new methods that could aid species conservation.
The New Yorker also covered the story, publishing an article titled 'The Dire Wolf is Back' that explored the scientific and ethical dimensions of the achievement. This coverage reportedly broke an embargo on the announcement, releasing information before Colossal was fully prepared to share all supporting research documentation. Scientific Publications and Expert Commentary
Scientific publications approached the story with appropriate rigor, examining the technical achievements and their implications for conservation biology.
The announcement coincided with the publication of a research paper titled 'On the ancestry and evolution of the extinct dire wolf,' which provided scientific context for the de-extinction effort. This paper, showing that Colossal's team had generated '3.4× and 12.8× paleogenomes from two well-preserved dire wolves dating to > 13,000 and > 72,000 years ago,' offered the scientific community detailed data about the genomic work underlying the achievement.
CRISPRMedicineNews published Colossal's detailed press release, which included expert commentary from scientists such as Dr. Christopher Mason, who called the achievement 'transformative' and 'an extraordinary technological leap in genetic engineering efforts for both science and for conservation.' Terminology and Framing Debates
Some media coverage engaged with questions about terminology and whether the genetically modified gray wolves should properly be called 'de-extinct dire wolves.' Science communicator Hank Green produced videos examining this question, suggesting that while the achievement was scientifically remarkable, it might be more accurate to describe the animals as genetically modified gray wolves rather than resurrected dire wolves.
This nuanced examination prompted Dr. Beth Shapiro, Colossal's Chief Science Officer, to respond with clarifications about how the company defines de-extinction. Referencing the IUCN Species Survival Commission's definition of de-extinction as 'the process of creating an organism that resembles an extinct species,' Shapiro acknowledged the terminology complexities while emphasizing the practical conservation applications of the technology.
'If you want to call these gray wolves with 20 genetic edits reflecting dire wolf traits, you can totally do that. You can call them proxy dire wolves or Colossal's dire wolves. No issue here,' Shapiro noted, adding that the purpose of the work was to advance conservation biotechnology rather than debate terminology. Conservation Angles
Some media coverage focused particularly on the conservation implications of the achievement. Outlets highlighted Colossal's parallel announcement about successfully cloning critically endangered red wolves using the same technology developed for the dire wolf work.
This aspect received somewhat less attention than the dire wolf announcement itself, despite its immediate conservation relevance. As Hank Green noted in a follow-up video titled 'Everyone Ignored Colossal's Bigger Wolf News,' the red wolf cloning achievement potentially represents a more direct contribution to ongoing conservation efforts.
Conservation-focused publications emphasized how the technologies developed for de-extinction could be applied to prevent extinctions of currently threatened species. The techniques used for the dire wolf, particularly the non-invasive blood cloning method, were highlighted as potentially valuable tools for preserving genetic diversity in small populations. Indigenous Perspectives
Some media coverage included indigenous perspectives on the dire wolf de-extinction. Mark Fox, Tribal Chairman of the MHA Nation, was quoted describing the dire wolf's return as 'more than a biological revival' but rather a symbol that 'carries the echoes of our ancestors, their wisdom, and their connection to the wild.'
This angle enriched the media narrative by acknowledging cultural and spiritual dimensions of species restoration beyond the purely scientific aspects, though such perspectives generally received less prominence than the technical achievements. Visual Presentation
The visual component of media coverage played a significant role in how the story was perceived. Photographs and video footage of the white-furred wolf pups created powerful imagery that made the abstract concept of de-extinction tangible for audiences.
Media outlets frequently juxtaposed these images with artistic renderings of prehistoric dire wolves or with still images from Game of Thrones featuring the fictional dire wolves, visually connecting the scientific achievement to both paleontological understanding and pop culture familiarity. Celebrity Engagement
The involvement of celebrities and well-known figures added another dimension to media coverage. George R.R. Martin's role as a Colossal investor and cultural advisor created natural hooks for entertainment publications covering the story.
Other notable Colossal advisors mentioned in coverage included actors Seth Green and Joe Manganiello, and football star Tom Brady, who was quoted saying: 'The dire wolf will not only break into the pop culture zeitgeist, it will also raise awareness of what is possible in science which will inspire kids of all ages.'
This celebrity component helped broaden the story's reach beyond science-focused audiences to entertainment and general interest media, increasing public awareness of both the dire wolf achievement and de-extinction technology more broadly. Ethical and Technical Discussions
More specialized coverage delved into the ethical and technical aspects of de-extinction. These pieces often referenced the IUCN Species Survival Commission's guiding principles on de-extinction, examining how Colossal's approach aligned with established conservation frameworks.
Technical discussions highlighted the achievement of implementing 20 precise genetic edits in a living vertebrate – a new record that demonstrates significant advances in multiplex genome editing capabilities. These discussions emphasized how Colossal carefully selected which dire wolf genes to implement, prioritizing animal welfare by avoiding genetic variants that might cause health problems. Bridging Science and Culture
The most nuanced media coverage recognized that the dire wolf de-extinction represents both a scientific milestone and a cultural moment. By resurrecting an animal that bridges paleontological history and popular imagination, Colossal created a story that resonates on multiple levels.
This multidimensional quality of the story likely contributed to its broad media appeal, allowing different publications to emphasize the aspects most relevant to their audiences while still conveying the fundamental scientific achievement.
The diversity of media perspectives on the dire wolf de-extinction reflects the multifaceted nature of the achievement itself – at once a technical breakthrough, a conservation innovation, a cultural touchpoint, and a philosophical milestone that challenges conventional understandings of extinction as a permanent condition.
THE LIBRARIANS: THE NEXT CHAPTER Series Premiere Recap: (S01E01) And the Deadly Drekavac
RELATED 5 Great Books About Libraries and Librarians
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
9 minutes ago
- E&E News
Atmospheric CO2 buildup broke another record in May
Climate-warming carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere broke another record last month, breaching 430 parts per million for the first time in recorded history. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, whose researchers track atmospheric CO2, publicly announced the findings Thursday morning. NOAA announced the findings in social media posts on X and Facebook, linking to the public data on its website. The agency also typically reveals the annual CO2 in a news release, like last year's announcement, but hadn't done so as of 12:30 p.m. ET on Thursday. Advertisement Kim Doster, NOAA's director of communications, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Wall Street Journal
13 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Proof' Review: Finding Truth in Numbers
Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence read: 'We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable . . . ' It was supposedly Benjamin Franklin who suggested instead announcing the truths to be 'self-evident,' as though they were fundamental mathematical axioms providing an incontestable foundation for the new republic. The idea of self-evident truths goes all the way back to Euclid's 'Elements' (ca. 300 B.C.), which depends on a handful of axioms—things that must be granted true at the outset, such as that one can draw a straight line between any two points on a plane. From such assumptions Euclid went on to show, for example, that there are infinitely many prime numbers, and that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. If the axioms are true, and the subsequent reasoning is sound, then the conclusion is irrefutable. What we now have is a proof: something we can know for sure. Adam Kucharski, a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, takes the reader on a fascinating tour of the history of what has counted as proof. Today, for example, we have computerized proofs by exhaustion, in which machines chew through examples so numerous that they could never be checked by humans. The author sketches the development of ever-more-rarefied mathematics, from calculus to the mind-bending work on different kinds of infinity by the Russian-German sage Georg Cantor, who proved that natural integers (1,2,3 . . . ) are somehow not more numerous than even numbers (2,4,6 . . .), even though the former set includes all the elements of the latter set, in addition to the one that contains all odd numbers. My favorite example is the Banach-Tarski paradox, which proves that you can disassemble a single sphere and reconstitute it into two spheres of identical size. Climbing the ladder of proof, we can enter a wild realm where intuitions break down completely. But proof, strictly understood, is only half the story here. Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Kucharski relates, taught himself to derive Euclid's proofs to give himself an argumentative edge in the courtroom and in Congress. Yet politics is messier than geometry; and so the dream of perfectly logical policymaking, immune to quibble, remains out of reach. What should we do, then, when a mathematical proof of truth is unavailable, but we must nonetheless act?
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. Fusion will be a key element to become an energy superpower. (Wal van Lierop) China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.
