Latest news with #ColossalBiosciences'
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Science
- Otago Daily Times
‘De-extinction' criticism sparks smear campaign
University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence holds a moa bone extracted from a site in Central Otago. PHOTO: STEPHEN JAQUIERY An Otago paleogenetics researcher who has been critical of Colossal Biosciences' plan to "de-extinct" the giant moa has been targeted by online "smear" articles aimed at discrediting him. University of Otago paleogeneticist Associate Prof Nic Rawlence has publicly said there was no such thing as de-extinction, and the American company's plan was "a pipe dream that will likely never take flight". "Once something is extinct, it is gone." He said Colossal would be creating a genetically engineered emu or some other genetically engineered ratite that may look like a moa, but was unlikely to function or sound like a moa. Colossal also claimed to have iwi engagement in the project, but Prof Rawlence said based on his experience working with Ngāi Tahu, there was no appetite for de-extinction among many of the individual rūnanga. Now, supporters of Colossal have launched a "smear campaign" on him and other top scientists around the globe who have publicly criticised the de-extinction project. He said there had been three AI-generated articles published in media around the world attacking his professional credibility. One called him a "hypocrite" because he also uses fragmentary ancient DNA to reconstruct lost ecosystems — the same technique Colossal will use to bring back the giant moa. The article said he could not criticise Colossal without criticising his own work. "That's complete rubbish because we're very conscious of the limitations of the data that we use, and we don't over-extrapolate and over-extend our conclusions. "Colossal are selling that they're de-extincting things when they're not. I'm not selling my work as de-extinction." The second "hit piece" accused Prof Rawlence of being more concerned about being a media fixture than actually doing research. "It said I should go focus on improving my mediocre publication record. "My publication record — well that speaks for itself." The third one that came out earlier this week said he was "misappropriating and misrepresenting the Maori voice" around the extinction. "All the engagement work I have done around sequencing moa genomes or looking at New Zealand's taonga species with iwi, hapu, runanga and trusts around the country, means we know the feelings of mana whenua and they are against de-extinction." Colossal chief executive Ben Lamm has told media the company had no involvement in the AI-generated articles. However, Prof Rawlence said it was clear the company did not like the critical commentary. He published a comment piece on The Conversation website about de-extinction, topped with a "tongue-in-cheek headline" saying: "First the dire wolf, now NZ's giant moa: why real 'de-extinction' is unlikely to fly". On July 12, Mr Lamm posted on X about the article, saying: "There are sometimes crazy, weird conspiracy articles about @colossal which make us laugh — But the dumbest headline of all time goes to this article whose author doesn't even know moas couldn't fly. "If the moas [sic] fly, we really up. LOL. I wish people did more research. DUMB — LOLOLOLOLOL." Prof Rawlence said there was also a YouTube video from Colossal about de-extinction science that called its detractors "armchair critics". "Colossal may not be behind the AI-generated smear campaign, but they definitely are wanting to smear and take down critical commentary." Prof Rawlence said he was not concerned about the campaign to discredit his work. "It's water off a moa's back for me. "Under the Education Act, universities have a critic and conscience role enshrined in the legislation, so we can speak out within our area of expertise — which is exactly what we have done. "We provided critical scientific commentary that we did not support de-extinction and that there were serious scientific, ethical, ecological and indigenous engagement concerns. "If the supporters of Colossal had any substantial critique to counter our scientific commentary, they would have used it. "Instead, they're resorting to this — low blows and personal attacks. So to me, it just means our messages are actually hitting home." He believed Colossal's actions were very "Trump-ish". "If a CEO or a director of a museum or the boss of a university put this tweet out, he would be called up in front of his board, reprimanded, or even worse. "But this is Trump's America, and everything is upside down. "So I wouldn't call it very inspiring behaviour at all."
NBC News
13-07-2025
- Science
- NBC News
Researchers launch new effort to revive extinct species
Researchers at the company 'Colossal Biosciences' are launching a new effort to revive the giant Moa bird in its latest effort to resurrect an extinct species. NBC News' Marissa Parra has the details.
Mint
08-05-2025
- Science
- Mint
Gene editing: Is humanity ready to rewrite the book of life?
When Watson and Crick discovered DNA's double helix in 1953, humanity stumbled upon something miraculous and menacing: the ability to edit genes. Not read them, not mildly tweak them, but rewrite them with a divinity complex. Think of it as opening Microsoft Word and creating your fantasy appearance. Rainbow-coloured eyes? Sure. Sounds amazing? It is. Terrifying? Definitely. Gene editing is like Prometheus handing humanity the genetic matchstick—except this time, instead of fire, we're toying with the instruction manual of life. It all started innocently enough, back in the 1970s, when scientists like Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen created recombinant DNA, enabling direct gene manipulation across species barriers. The 1980s saw the first genetically modified organisms and transgenic animals, while the 1990s brought the ambitious Human Genome Project. Also Read: Genetically engineered animals are here: Regulation mustn't get left behind By 2003, scientists had mapped 92% of humanity's complete genetic blueprint. The pace quickened with the 2012 invention of Crispr-Cas9, the tool that democratized precise genetic modification through its relative simplicity and affordability. In one bold move, we accelerated both progress and ethical concerns. Crispr tech is precise, cheap and fast. It is already being used to cure genetic diseases. Between 2023-25, the UK and US approved therapies that cured—and not just treated— sickle cell anaemia. Patients who lived their lives with chronic pain and blood transfusions are now free of the illness . Crispr tech do-it-yourself kits can be bought online. It sounds like a great Diwali gift, until someone starts editing mosquitoes to spread designer viruses or resurrects smallpox as a prank. Amazing and terrifying. Scientists, meanwhile, are re-programming immune cells to target tumours with high precision. Plant engineering is equally promising. We could soon have drought-resistant rice and bananas that resist going brown. More nutritious and resilient crops that can withstand climate change could revolutionize food security worldwide. Also Read: Colossal Biosciences' dire wolf pups aren't proof of gene-tech defeating extinction As for genetic re-engineering being a bugbear, the Lulu and Nana controversy is a prime example. It involved twin girls born in November 2018 who were the world's first known genetically modified humans, edited as embryos by scientist He Jiankui. He introduced a mutation to make the gene HIV resistant (the girls' father was HIV-positive while their mother wasn't). His secret research was exposed when documents appeared in China's clinical trials registry and other international publications. The case highlighted the reality of designer babies and underscored the urgent need for an international oversight and governance framework. Genetic inequality has moved beyond science fiction. Today, gene enhancement is available, even if only at a prohibitive cost. Cloning is another contentious issue that hit the news in 1996, with Dolly being the first cloned mammal. While animal cloning is practised in agriculture and conservation, human cloning remains ethically questionable and mainly in the realm of science fiction. Also Read: Genetic studies: Let's cast a wider DNA net The question of whether human genes should be patented is a hotly contested one. While patents incentivize research and drive innovation, critics argue that naturally occurring genes belong to the entire human race. A 2013 US Supreme Court ruling against Myriad Genetics that invalidated patents on naturally occurring genes like BRCA1 and BRCA2 (linked to breast cancer) set a legal precedent. Yet, synthetic or significantly altered genetic sequences remain patentable. Now let's then address the 'mammoth' in the room. Are we headed for a real-life Jurassic Park? The short answer is 'no.' We can't recreate dinosaurs. DNA degrades too fast, with a half-life of about 521 years. The longer answer is 'kind of.' Colossal Biosciences, a US startup, is working on bringing back woolly mammoths by modifying Asian-elephant DNA. It has tried to resurrect the dodo and dire wolf. This is called 'de-extinction,' but critics call it 'bio-dramatics with unpredictable ecological consequences." Let's not sugar-coat it. Gene modification could widen an already yawning gap between the haves and have-nots. Imagine rich engineered babies growing taller, smarter and resistant to everything except bad wi-fi, while the poor are stuck in queues for basic vaccines. Left unchecked, this could usher in genetic caste systems. Humanity, never one to resist temptation, has already produced some genetic oddities. Nasa has gene-edited mice to grow larger muscles in space. Scientists are now editing weed to remove the high THC and preserve its medicinal value. And there are also glow-in-the-dark pets: fluorescent cats, pigs and even bunnies. Also Read: What does a woolly mammoth have in common with Mars? Nothing, except neither will solve Earth's problems Gene-editing is a tool like fire or nuclear energy. Used wisely, it can rid us of suffering, feed billions and save species. Used recklessly, it can usher in a genetic dystopia. The current thinking in science and bioethics is cautiously optimistic. Therapeutic editing is okay, enhancement for aesthetics, intellect or athleticism is hotly debated and editing embryos for heritable traits is mostly banned or heavily restricted, while reviving dinosaurs is not on. As Dr Ian Malcolm grumbled in Jurassic Park : 'Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." It's finally time to confront that dilemma. The author is a technology advisor and podcast host.
Time Business News
23-04-2025
- Science
- Time Business News
Colossal Biosciences' Future Vision
Colossal Biosciences' work on dire wolf de-extinction has captured the public imagination and scientific attention, but the company's ambitions extend well beyond this single iconic species. The dire wolf project represents a proving ground for technologies and methodologies that could transform conservation biology and address biodiversity challenges on a broader scale. The techniques developed for the dire wolf project have applications far beyond this single species. The genetic technologies being refined through the research already show promise for helping endangered species like the red wolf, which faces severe conservation challenges in the wild. This transfer of technology from de-extinction research to conservation applications demonstrates the broader impact that Colossal's work could have on biodiversity preservation. The dire wolf project serves as both a scientific pursuit in its own right and a development platform for techniques that could benefit living species facing extinction threats. While the dire wolf represents Colossal's most publicized de-extinction candidate, The New Yorker indicates that the company is already conducting preliminary research on several other extinct species that might benefit from similar approaches. These include other Ice Age mammals that played critical ecological roles in their environments. The selection criteria for future projects prioritize species that went extinct relatively recently (improving DNA recovery possibilities), served significant ecological functions, and could potentially thrive in existing habitats. This methodical approach reflects the company's science-based philosophy rather than simply selecting charismatic species for public appeal. The dire wolf project has already accelerated the development of several key technologies that will likely feature in Colossal's future work. These include improved ancient DNA extraction and sequencing methods, more sophisticated computational approaches for genome reconstruction, and refined genetic editing techniques optimized for ecological applications. Each successive project is expected to benefit from these technological improvements, potentially creating a virtuous cycle in which each species studied contributes to the advancement of tools that can then be applied to more challenging cases. This progressive approach allows the company to tackle increasingly complex de-extinction candidates as its capabilities evolve. The dire wolf research's most immediate future impact lies in its applications for endangered species conservation. Colossal is developing a 'genetic rescue toolkit' that could help preserve and potentially enhance genetic diversity in critically endangered populations. These tools include advanced genetic monitoring techniques, assisted reproduction technologies optimized for species with small populations, and even genetic interventions that could help vulnerable species adapt to changing environmental conditions. Conservation biologists see these applications as potentially more impactful in the near term than the complete de-extinction of long-gone species. Beyond individual species, Colossal's longer-term vision focuses on ecosystem functions and relationships. VentureBeat reports that the company views extinct species not as isolated entities but as components of complex ecological systems, each playing specific roles that may have gone unfilled since their disappearance. This ecosystem-based approach informs how the company selects candidate species and designs research programs. Rather than simply recreating extinct animals as museum curiosities, the focus remains on ecological functions and potential contributions to habitat restoration and biodiversity enhancement. The future of Colossal's work will likely involve expanded international partnerships and collaborations. The company is already engaging with global conservation organizations, universities, and research institutions to build networks supporting de-extinction research and conservation applications. These collaborations could help scale both the research capacity and the implementation of resulting technologies, potentially creating global platforms for addressing biodiversity challenges through innovative genetic approaches. The dire wolf project has reportedly opened doors to partnerships that might not have been possible without its generated attention. An intriguing dimension of Colossal's future work involves collaboration with indigenous communities with traditional ecological knowledge about environments where extinct species once lived. The company has begun engaging with tribal nations to incorporate traditional knowledge into their understanding of how species like the dire wolf functioned in their original ecosystems. This integration of traditional ecological knowledge with cutting-edge genomics represents an innovative approach that recognizes multiple ways of understanding the natural world. Future projects may see deeper integration of these knowledge systems, potentially creating more holistic approaches to de-extinction and conservation. As Colossal Biosciences continues to advance its dire wolf research while developing other projects, the company's work exemplifies a new frontier in biotechnology where genetic innovation, conservation biology, and ecosystem restoration converge. Rather than viewing de-extinction as an end, the company positions it within a broader context of biodiversity enhancement and ecological resilience. This integrated approach suggests that the future of Colossal's work will continue to bridge multiple disciplines and applications. The dire wolf project serves as just the beginning of a much larger scientific journey with potentially far-reaching implications for how humanity addresses biodiversity challenges in the coming decades. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Forbes
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
A Biologist Reveals 3 Species That Are Closer To Extinction Under The Trump Administration
As of early 2025, more than 1,300 species in the United States are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). For decades, the ESA has been the primary legislative tool for halting extinction, credited with preventing the loss of species ranging from bald eagles to black-footed ferrets. But recent developments have raised new concerns about how long that protection will hold. Since taking office earlier this year, the Trump administration has revived the rarely used Endangered Species Committee, informally known as the 'God Squad.' This committee holds the authority to override ESA protections when economic or public interest arguments are deemed compelling enough, even if such actions would knowingly lead to species extinction. The God Squad has historically been convened only in exceptional cases, with rigorous checks and scientific review. Under current orders, however, the committee is now being scheduled to meet regularly and has been tasked with identifying 'obstacles to domestic energy infrastructure.' At the same time, the administration has expressed support for a different kind of conservation model — de-extinction. Following Colossal Biosciences' recent announcement that it had produced the world's first dire wolf pups using gene-editing technologies, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum celebrated the moment as a turning point. 'Since the dawn of our nation, it has been innovation — not regulation — that has spawned American greatness,' Burgum wrote on X. 'The revival of the dire wolf heralds the advent of a thrilling new era of scientific wonder, showcasing how the concept of 'de-extinction' can serve as a bedrock for modern species conservation.' While the achievement is remarkable, it's important to note that the dire wolf genome reconstruction took years, and only three pups exist so far, all in captive care. (This also sidesteps the larger question of whether these animals are truly dire wolves or simply genetically engineered gray wolves.) Meanwhile, other species are facing extinction on a much shorter clock. What follows are three native animals whose future has grown significantly more uncertain under the current regulatory climate. Once believed extinct, the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is among the most remarkable recovery stories in North American conservation. Native to the open prairies of the Great Plains, these elusive, nocturnal predators rely almost entirely on prairie dogs for both food and shelter. Their fate, historically and still today, is tightly bound to the survival of their prey. By the late 1970s, habitat loss, widespread prairie dog eradication programs and outbreaks of sylvatic plague had pushed black-footed ferrets to presumed extinction. Then in 1981, a ranch dog in Wyoming unearthed a carcass that led to the last known population, which grew to about 130 individuals. When plague struck again, only 18 ferrets remained. From those few, a national recovery effort was launched, anchored by the National Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center in Colorado. That painstaking work is now in jeopardy. Earlier this year, key staff at the center were terminated as part of broader federal cuts, and critical funding for plague mitigation in wild habitats has been frozen. Plague remains an ever-present threat, capable of erasing years of recovery in a single outbreak. Without the technicians who manage captive breeding and vaccination programs, and without support for tribal and field-based conservation, the species' hard-won gains are now vulnerable to rapid reversal. Once ranging from Texas to Pennsylvania, the red wolf (Canis rufus) is now reduced to a single fragile population in North Carolina's Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Slightly smaller and more slender than its gray cousins, the red wolf is a uniquely American carnivore and one of the rarest. Around 15 red wolves remain in the wild today. Decades of captive breeding and carefully managed reintroductions had sparked hope. By the early 2010s, around 120 individuals roamed northeastern North Carolina. But that recovery unraveled after regulatory protections weakened. Hybridization with coyotes, vehicle collisions and illegal shootings accelerated the decline. For several years, no pups were born in the wild. Conservation programs stalled, and federal agencies scaled back active management. One bright spot came with the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), which allocated funds for wildlife crossings on highways like US 64, an artery notorious for red wolf road deaths. In 2023, North Carolina received a $25 million federal grant to begin constructing underpasses, backed by $4 million in additional funding. These structures could significantly reduce collisions and reconnect fragmented wolf habitat. But in early 2025, the Trump administration froze disbursement of the BIL funds, putting the project in limbo. Meanwhile, Colossal Biosciences has cloned hybrids of the red wolf with coyotes in an attempt to bolster their falling numbers, but this does little to address the cause of their decline. For a species already hanging by a thread, even short delays matter. Red wolves face not only ecological pressures, but administrative uncertainty. Without continued reintroductions, road protections and legal safeguards, one of America's most distinctive carnivores could vanish without a trace. Among the last echoes of an ancient avian lineage, the ʻakikiki (Oreomystis bairdi) clings to existence in the misty rainforests of Kauaʻi. Once ranging across the island, this small gray-and-white honeycreeper now survives only in the highest elevations of Kokeʻe and the Alakaʻi Plateau — areas increasingly under siege by invasive mosquitoes carrying avian malaria. A species that numbered in the hundreds as recently as 2018 now has less than 5 individuals left in the wild. Without decisive intervention, the ʻakikiki may vanish from its native forest within months. Captive breeding programs, launched with support from institutions like the San Diego Zoo, have preserved a genetically vital population of about 40 birds. Yet even this safeguard is vulnerable. Releasing lab-reared mosquitoes infected with Wolbachia bacteria to suppress wild mosquito populations is the most promising strategy to help these birds grow their population in the wild today. The operation was set to expand with funding from the BIL, but now faces uncertainty amid funding freezes. On Kauaʻi, the consequences are immediate. Field teams managing mosquito control, predator fencing and nesting site monitoring have been abruptly terminated. The abrupt layoffs of key personnel, including biologists at the Kauaʻi National Wildlife Refuge Complex, have left entire habitats unguarded. With each passing day of inaction, the challenges facing the ʻakikiki become more acute. As field operations are interrupted and conservation timelines stall, the few remaining birds in the wild continue to face mounting threats. And without sustained support, the window for meaningful intervention may soon begin to close. As more species move into the endangered list, how do you feel about the debilitating effects of climate change? Take a 2-minute test to see where you stand on the Climate Change Worry Scale.
