logo
Scientists say they ‘brought back' dire wolves from extinction. Not exactly.

Scientists say they ‘brought back' dire wolves from extinction. Not exactly.

Boston Globe08-04-2025

Other scientists, however, say that while Colossal's technological feats are impressive,
the animals are not truly dire wolves and that the process has raised a raft of ethical issues.
Advertisement
'The reality is we can't de-extinct extinct creatures because we can't use cloning — the DNA is just not well enough preserved,' said Nicolas Rawlence, an associate professor and director of the Palaeogenetics Laboratory at New Zealand's University of Otago.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
In a phone interview Tuesday, he said Colossal's pups are not dire wolves, but gray wolves that have had part of their genome changed to look like dire wolves. 'What Colossal is trying to do is genetically engineering animals to look like extinct creatures,' he said. 'They look cute and cuddly but … they're not a dire wolf.'
Pontus Skoglund, leader of the Ancient Genomics Laboratory at Britain's Francis Crick Institute, said in a post on Bluesky that he was 'not necessarily against the initiative, but would a chimpanzee with 20 gene edits be human? … These individuals seem optimistically 1/100,000th dire wolf.'
Advertisement
Video posted on Colossal's social media showed two of the white fluffy pups, Romulus and Remus, practicing their howls. Romulus and Remus are the names of the mythical founders of Rome, who were raised by a wolf. Dire wolves will also be familiar to fans of 'Game of Thrones,' the hit television show, which features several of the animals. The name of the other pup, Khaleesi, appears in the 'Game of Thrones' TV and book series, which also depicts dire wolves.
The 'dire wolf' pups are the latest headline-grabbing claim from the bioscience venture, founded by tech entrepreneur Ben Lamm and Harvard geneticist George Church, which says it is working to bring back some of the world's most famous extinct species.
In its sights are the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and thylacine, or Tasmanian Tiger, which it aims to reengineer for the modern world. It has already created mice with hair like a woolly mammoth, and aims to conserve ancient traits as part of what it says are broader efforts to preserve the world's biodiversity. The company has been valued at $10.2 billion and raised $435 million in funding, including $200 million announced in January.
Colossal's chief science officer, Beth Shapiro, said in a statement on the company's website that the birth of the pups shows 'we are one step closer to a world in which these tools are among those at our disposal to help species thrive in their rapidly changing habitats.'
Shapiro previously told The Washington Post that the company was not trying to clone animals in the same way that had been done with Dolly the Sheep. 'We're not trying to make something that's identical to a dodo,' Shapiro said about the company's efforts to create a dodo-like bird using the DNA of a pigeon. 'We're trying to create something that's able to behave like a dodo would on that landscape in some key, functional way. So a large, flightless bird that wanders around and eats fruits and spreads the seeds,' she said.
Advertisement
Some scientists are
dismissive of the claims and wary of the company's approach, even while expressing admiration for the technological accomplishments of its CRISPR gene-editing techniques, in which a piece of DNA can be snipped out from a genome and precisely
replaced.
In the wolves' case, scientists edited the gray wolf genome to approximate the size, color, and coat of a dire wolf, Rawlence said. 'There are about 19,000 genes in that genome. They looked at all the differences and said there are 20 key differences in 14 key genes that they could change to make a gray wolf look like a dire wolf,' he said. 'Their technology is amazing, but my personal view is it needs to be used to conserve the animals we've got left,' he said.
That could include using money the company has raised to manage existing endangered species, or reintroduce genetic diversity among existing species to help them adapt to climate change or diseases.
He said trying to recreate the characteristics of extinct animals provides no incentive to conserve species in the first place, and raises concerns about where and how the animals will live. 'Is there even going to be the habitat? How are you going to deal with increased human-wolf conflict? What's going to happen when your genetically engineered gray wolves hybridize with other gray wolves?' he said.
Advertisement
He also raised concerns about how a species could survive with just three members and said 'at least 500 individuals' would be needed to ensure a genetically diverse population. He also raised ethical concerns: Will extinction companies trademark these creatures? Who owns them? These are all discussions we need to have, he said.
Colossal did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday morning.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Watch: Gaal takes on the Mule in 'Foundation' Season 3 trailer
Watch: Gaal takes on the Mule in 'Foundation' Season 3 trailer

UPI

time3 hours ago

  • UPI

Watch: Gaal takes on the Mule in 'Foundation' Season 3 trailer

1 of 3 | Apple TV+ is previewing Season 3 of "Foundation." Photo courtesy of Apple TV+ June 11 (UPI) -- Voyagers actress Lou Llobell and Game of Thrones actor Pilou Asbaek prepare to face off in a new trailer for Foundation Season 3, released Wednesday. Llobell portrays Gaal in the sci-fi series inspired by the Isaac Asimov novels. Asbaek joins the cast as the Mule, a warlord who poses "a threat to the entire galaxy," according to an official synopsis. "You think I'm a monster?" he asks in the preview. "I have talents, you see. I can worm my way into people's minds. Convert enemies into allies. Hate into love." Hari (Jared Harris) tells Gaal that her battle is with the Mule. "It's my job to ensure you're prepared." he says. "The Mule's abilities are far beyond anything I can do," she responds. Season 3 takes place more than a century after Season 2, according to the synopsis. The upcoming chapter also stars Cherry Jones, Brandon P. Bell, Synnove Karlsen, Cody Fern, Tomas Lemarquis, Alexander Siddig, Troy Kotsur, Laura Birn, Cassian Bilton, Terrence Mann and Rowena King. Season 3 premieres July 11 on Apple TV+.

SXSW London: Man hoping to bring dodo and mammoth back to life teases Jurassic Park collaboration
SXSW London: Man hoping to bring dodo and mammoth back to life teases Jurassic Park collaboration

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

SXSW London: Man hoping to bring dodo and mammoth back to life teases Jurassic Park collaboration

The man working on bringing the dodo and woolly mammoth back to Earth has hinted at the SXSW London event at a collaboration between his bioscience lab Colossal and the Jurassic Park films. The entrepreneur Ben Lamm, founder of Colossal Biosciences, has long been asked about the parallels between his work and the films of Jurassic Park, but has insisted returning the dinosaurs to Earth isn't possible at present due to the lack of available DNA. Dodos and mammoths died out more recently and DNA is available from fossils. Speaking at the SXSW London event in Shoreditch, Lamm teased a future partnership. During a panel discussion with the actor Sophie Turner, Lamm said he was 'very excited about Jurassic Park, and maybe there's future things coming. Not in the dinosaur world, but with those guys.' Lamm has always insisted his 198 employees at Colossal Biosciences are nothing like the fictitious world of Jurassic Park. Speaking to The Guardian earlier this year when asked about the comparison, he said: 'People have to remember that that was a movie, right?' Jurassic World Rebirth, the sixth film in the franchise, arrives in UK cinemas on 2 July. Colossal Biosciences has used genetic engineering processes to bring back to life the dire wolf, an extinct species that lived around 10,000 years ago. The three dire wolves are in a private 2,000-acre ecological preserve somewhere in the US, although the location has not been revealed. They are named Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, inspired by the TV series Game of Thrones. Also at the SXSW London event, Lamm revealed he hoped to share further news about Colossal's journey to returning the Dodo to Earth this summer. SXSW London features panels and events with entrepreneurs, film-makers, musicians and thought leaders and runs in Shoreditch until 7 June. Mayor Sadiq Khan opened the event, which originated in Texas in 1987, by pitching London as an international AI hub. Read more:

Is ‘de-extinction' here? How gene editing can help endangered species
Is ‘de-extinction' here? How gene editing can help endangered species

Fast Company

time13 hours ago

  • Fast Company

Is ‘de-extinction' here? How gene editing can help endangered species

IMPACT Gene editing's real value is not in re-creating copies of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Red Wolves are seen at the North Carolina Museum of Life + Science on Thursday, November 8, 2017, in Durham, NC. [Photo: Salwan Georges/The] BY Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 8:48 Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of Game of Thrones author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a ' de-extinction ' company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a PhD in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term 'endangered species.' The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. Of dire wolves and de-extinction What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. Subscribe to the Daily Company's trending stories delivered to you every day SIGN UP The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents more than 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological, or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the 'functional de-extinction' game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the 'if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck' school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy —the science of naming and categorizing living organisms—are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of 'species,' and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. Deciding what counts as an endangered 'species' In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid 'species' and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their 'aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just ' pick your favorite species and call up Colossal '? Putting biotechnology to work for conservation Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a 'lost' population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned 'ghost' red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these 'ghost wolves' into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic 'purity' versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem—especially habitat destruction. The ability to make 'functional' copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. Alex Erwin is an assistant professor of law at Florida International University. The final deadline for Fast Company's Next Big Things in Tech Awards is Friday, June 20, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store