Latest news with #Remus
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
If it looks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf? How to define a species is a scientific and philosophical question
Biotech company Colossal Biosciences made headlines in April 2025 after claiming it had 'successfully restored … the dire wolf to its rightful place in the ecosystem.' Three wolf pups – Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi – were born through this de-extinction project. But behind the scenes lies a more complicated reality. What Colossal actually did was edit a small number of gray wolf genes, aiming to create physical traits that resemble those of the extinct dire wolf. The edited embryos were implanted into surrogate domestic dogs. Many scientists and reporters expressed skepticism about the claim that this amounts to restoring the dire wolf. Experts pointed out that tweaking a handful of genes does not replicate the full biological reality of a long-extinct species. Most of the dire wolf's genetic makeup remains unknown and unreplicated. This gap between appearance and biological identity raises a deeper question: What exactly is a species, and how do you decide whether something belongs to one species rather than another? Biologists call the answer a species concept – a theory about what a species is and how researchers sort organisms into different groups. As a philosopher of science who studies what defines a species, I can say this: Whether de-extinction projects succeed depends on which species concept you think is right – and the truth is, even scientists don't agree. When scientists talk about biodiversity – the variety of life-forms found in nature – species are the basic building blocks. A species is supposed to reflect a real division between distinct groups of organisms in the natural world, not just a convenient label. In classifying living things into species, scientists are trying to 'carve nature at its joints' to reflect real patterns shaped by evolution. Even so, deciding what counts as a species turns out to be surprisingly difficult and highly controversial. Scientists have proposed dozens of distinct species concepts – some scholars have counted over 32 ways to define a species – and each draws the lines a little differently. These definitions don't always agree on whether an organism is part of one species rather than another. Two of the most influential species concepts highlight the challenge. The biological species concept defines a species as a group of organisms that can naturally breed with each other and produce fertile offspring. Under this view, African forest elephants and African savanna elephants were once classified as the same species because they could mate and have young together, even though they lived in different habitats and looked different. Another approach, the phylogenetic species concept, emphasizes ancestry instead of breeding. A species, in this view, is a group that shares a unique evolutionary history, forming its own distinct branch on the tree of life. By this standard, researchers found that forest and savanna elephants had been genetically evolving separately for millions of years, long enough to be considered different species even if they could still interbreed. Understanding these different species concepts is crucial for evaluating claims about de-extinction. If Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi could naturally mate with historical dire wolves and produce fertile offspring, then they would be considered true dire wolves under the biological species concept. But for definitions of species that emphasize evolutionary history, such as the phylogenetic species concept, the lab-created wolves would not qualify as real dire wolves – even if they were indistinguishable from the originals – because they did not descend from historical dire wolves. Despite differences on how best to define species, there is a surprising degree of consensus among scientists and philosophers on one big idea: What makes something part of a species is not an internal feature, such as a specific set of genes, but a relationship to something else – to its environment, to other organisms, or to a shared evolutionary history. By this way of thinking – what is often called relationalism – there is no special 'lemon gene' that makes a lemon and no hidden genetic marker that automatically makes an animal a dire wolf. Commonly shared across all these theories is the notion that belonging to a particular species depends on connections and context, not on anything inside the organism itself. But what if that consensus is wrong? At first glance, the standard ways of defining a species seem to work well. But every now and then, nature throws a curveball – and even the most trusted definitions don't quite fit. Take the case of the blue-winged and golden-winged warblers. These two songbirds look and sound different. They wear different plumage, sing different songs and prefer different habitats. Birders and organizations such as the American Ornithological Society have always classified them as separate species. Yet under two of the most common scientific definitions of species, the biological and phylogenetic species concepts, blue-winged and golden-winged warblers are considered the same species. These birds regularly mate and produce young together. They've been swapping genes for thousands of years. And when scientists looked at their nuclear DNA – the genetic material tucked inside the nucleus of each cell – they found the two birds are 99.97% identical. This finding suggests that even careful, widely accepted species definitions can miss something important. So what if, instead, the key to being part of a species lies deep inside the organism, in the way its basic systems of life fit together? Recent work in biology and philosophy suggests another way of thinking about species that focuses on a hidden but vital system inside cells: the partnership between two sets of genetic material. I and my colleague Kyle B. Heine explore this idea by drawing on research in mitonuclear ecology – the study of how different parts of an organism's genetic material adapt and work together to produce energy. Virtually every cell contains two kinds of DNA. One set, stored in the nucleus, acts like an instruction manual that guides most of the cell's activities. The other, found in structures called mitochondria – the cell's energy centers – contains its own much smaller set of instructions geared toward supporting its unique role in keeping the cell running. Producing energy depends on precise teamwork between nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA, like two musicians playing in perfect harmony. Over millions of years, the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA of each species have evolved together to form a unique, finely tuned system. This insight has led to a new way of thinking about species, called the mitonuclear compatibility species concept. According to this idea, an organism belongs to a species if its two sets of genes – those in the nucleus and those in the mitochondria – are optimized to work together to generate life-sustaining energy. If the cellular partnership between these two genetic systems is mismatched, the organism may struggle to produce the energy it needs to survive, grow and reproduce. By this standard, different species aren't just defined by how they look or behave, but by whether their nuclear and mitochondrial genes form a uniquely coadapted team. For example, even though blue-winged and golden-winged warblers are nearly identical in their nuclear DNA, they differ by about 3% in their mitochondrial DNA – a clue that their energy systems are distinct. And that's exactly what the mitonuclear compatibility species concept predicts: They really are two separate species. Bringing back a species like the dire wolf isn't just a matter of getting the fur right or tweaking a few visible traits. According to my preferred species concept, even if a recreated animal looks the part, it won't truly be a dire wolf unless its inner genetic systems – the ones that power its cells – are finely tuned to work together, just as they were in the original species. That's a tall order. And without restoring the full inner machinery of the original species, any lab-grown look-alike would fall short. Understanding how scientists define species – and how those definitions shape the possibilities of de-extinction – offers more than just a lesson in biological bookkeeping. It shows that classification is not just about names or lineages, but about recognizing the deep biological patterns that sustain life, offering a deeper appreciation of what it really means to bring back the past. Reviving an extinct species isn't like assembling a model from spare parts. It means recreating a living, breathing system – one whose parts must work in concert, not just look the part. And that's why philosophy and science both matter here: To understand what we're bringing back, we must first understand what was truly lost. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Elay Shech, Auburn University Read more: Colors are objective, according to two philosophers − even though the blue you see doesn't match what I see Why is astronomy a science but astrology is not? Should we bring back the dodo? De-extinction is a feel-good story, but these high-tech replacements aren't really 'resurrecting' species Elay Shech does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Int'l Business Times
19-05-2025
- Science
- Int'l Business Times
Colossal's Dire Wolf De-Extinction: The Science Behind the Breakthrough
In a breakthrough that blurs the line between science fiction and reality, biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences has achieved what many thought impossible: bringing an extinct species back to life. On April 8, 2025, Colossal announced the successful birth of three dire wolf pups—Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi—marking the first-ever de-extinction of an animal through advanced genetic engineering. For Australian audiences, this achievement resonates particularly strongly, given the nation's own painful history with extinction and its ongoing battle to preserve unique fauna found nowhere else on Earth. From Ancient DNA to Three Living Pups The dire wolf ( Aenocyon dirus ), an iconic Ice Age predator that disappeared approximately 13,000 years ago, now walks the earth again. Once known only from fossils and popularized in fantasy through works like George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones , these animals represent a historic milestone in scientific achievement. Colossal's de-extinction process involved a sophisticated fusion of ancient DNA analysis, CRISPR gene editing, and reproductive technologies. Rather than finding a perfectly preserved specimen to clone directly, Colossal's team reconstructed the dire wolf genome and engineered living animals to match it. "Our team took DNA from a 13,000-year-old tooth and a 72,000-year-old skull and made healthy dire wolf puppies," explained Ben Lamm, CEO of Colossal Biosciences. "It was once said, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' Today, our team gets to unveil some of the magic they are working on and its broader impact on conservation." De-Extinction Through Genetic Innovation The scientific journey began with extracting genetic material from dire wolf fossils. From these ancient remains, scientists sequenced and assembled the extinct predator's genome, creating a genetic blueprint that would guide the revival process. Comparing this blueprint to the dire wolf's closest living relative—the gray wolf—Colossal's team identified 14 important genes carrying 20 distinct genetic variants that give dire wolves their characteristic features. These included genes influencing size, musculature, skull shape, tooth structure, coat texture, and even vocalization patterns. Using CRISPR technology, scientists edited living cells from gray wolves to carry these dire wolf genes. Twenty precise genetic edits were made to create the dire wolf. After careful genetic modification, Colossal applied cloning techniques to turn these edited cells into embryos. Scientists removed the genetic material from donor egg cells and replaced it with the nucleus of the edited cells. These reconstructed eggs were developed into embryos and implanted into surrogate mothers—domestic dogs, specifically hound mixes—for gestation. The first two pups, Romulus and Remus (both males), were born in October 2024 after approximately 65 days of gestation . A few months later, in January 2025, a third surrogate gave birth to the female pup, Khaleesi. Where Sci-Fi Becomes Reality Now at six months and three months old respectively, the snowy-white dire wolf pups are thriving at a dedicated 2,000-acre protected reserve under round-the-clock care and monitoring. Already exhibiting classic dire wolf traits, they have thick white fur, broad heads, and hefty builds, weighing approximately 80 pounds at just six months old. For comparison, red wolves—one of the largest existing wolf species—typically weigh just 35 to 45 pounds at that age. The stark contrast underscores the dire wolves' massive stature and distinctiveness, even at such an early stage of development. Interestingly, their behavior reflects their wild nature. Unlike domestic puppies, Romulus and Remus keep their distance from humans. They flinch or retreat even from familiar caretakers, demonstrating genuine wild lupine instincts despite never having encountered another dire wolf. This breakthrough is the latest from Colossal's de-extinction platform, which has also created "woolly mice" with mammoth genes. The dire wolf achievement, with even more genetic edits, suggests the company's timeline for reviving other extinct species, including plans to reintroduce the woolly mammoth by 2028 and the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) thereafter, might be feasible. Australian Conservation Applications and Future Impact While the dire wolf never roamed the Australian continent, the technology behind its revival has profound implications for Australia's unique conservation challenges. Australia faces one of the world's most severe extinction crises. As of early 2025, the number of Australian animals, plants, and ecological communities officially recognized as being in danger of extinction has risen to 2,142. The situation continues to worsen, with 144 species added to the threatened species list in 2023 alone—five times more than the yearly average. Beyond the scientific marvel, Colossal emphasizes that de-extinction science directly benefits extant endangered species worldwide, including Australia's threatened fauna. Alongside the dire wolf births, the company announced the successful cloning of two litters of critically endangered red wolves ( Canis rufus ), producing four healthy pups using the same "non-invasive blood cloning" approach developed in the dire wolf work. With fewer than 20 red wolves remaining in the wild in North America, making them the most endangered wolves on the planet, this technological crossover demonstrates immediate conservation applications. The red wolf cloning success could potentially increase the number of founding lineages in the captive breeding population by 25%. "The same technologies that created the dire wolf can directly help save a variety of other endangered animals as well. This is an extraordinary technological leap for both science and conservation," said Dr. Christopher Mason, a Colossal scientific advisor. Perhaps most significantly for Australia, the technologies developed in the dire wolf project are advancing Colossal's work to resurrect the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger), one of Australia's most notorious extinction events, occurring less than a century ago. Breakthroughs in October 2024 have produced a 99.9% complete thylacine genome from a 110-year-old preserved specimen. The University of Melbourne's TIGRR lab (Thylacine Integrated Genomic Restoration Research) is collaborating with Colossal on this project, with scientists suggesting the same de-extinction techniques could help protect current endangered Australian species. Ethics and Future Applications The revival of the dire wolf opens unprecedented possibilities for conservation and biodiversity restoration. The American Humane Society has certified Colossal's animal care facilities. For indigenous communities, the revival carries profound cultural significance. This collaborative approach to de-extinction, working with indigenous communities and conservation organizations, creates a model for responsible innovation. George R.R. Martin, author of Game of Thrones and a Colossal investor, captured the wonder of this achievement: "I get the luxury to write about magic, but Ben and Colossal have created magic by bringing these majestic beasts back to our world."
The Star
14-05-2025
- Science
- The Star
Cloning concerns: Should we bring back extinct animals?
IT'S the stuff of fiction. When news broke that a biotechnology company in the United States had 'successfully' cloned dire wolves, which have been extinct since the last Ice Age 13,000 years ago, it, well, broke the Internet. Time magazine captured the news eloquently with a cover picture of the dire wolf, which bears a close resemblance to an overly large white Swiss shepherd dog, with the word 'extinct' crossed out. Made famous by the fantasy book and television series Game of Thrones , the three dire wolf cubs called Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi are the product of embryos created from DNA retrieved from fossils and edited with 20 genes of grey wolves, and then implanted in surrogate dog mothers. The wolves were born in January 2025. Cloning animals is not new: Dolly the sheep was the first to be cloned, having being born in 1996 before dying six years later in 2003. However, cloning from fossils was, until October last year, only possible in the Jurassic Park movies. According to Colossal, the biotechnology company behind this feat, it first sequenced the first complete genome of the dire wolf from two fossils: a 13,000-year-old tooth and a 72,000-year-old inner ear bone. Using cells from the blood of a grey wolf, the team subsequently incorporated 20 edits across 14 genes to produce the traits of a dire wolf. They then removed the nucleus from the edited cell and inserted it into the denucleated egg cell of a domestic dog, with the resulting embryo later implanted into the surrogate animal, a dog. Although some biologists have since poured cold water on the actual science behind the dire wolf's revival, there's now talk about the possibility of bringing back – or 'de-extincting' – animals like the Tasmanian tiger or the thylacine, and the flightless dodo or even those from the Ice Age like the woolly mammoths and sabre-tooth tigers. This undated photo shows Romulus and Remus, both three months old and genetically engineered with similarities to the extinct dire wolf. — Colossal Biosciences via AP More importantly, if such 'de-extinction' technology proves to be viable in the long-run, what does it mean for Malaysia that has already lost a few of our own species? Can or should they be revived? And at what costs? Besides the ethical concerns that come with rejuvenating a species dead for thousands of years, some scientists have accused Colossal of producing 'dire wolves' that are merely 'edited' grey wolves. Adding to the debate is that while the dire wolf ( Aenocyon dirus ) may look similar to the grey wolf ( Canis lupus ), the lineage of the two species actually split around 5.7 million years ago. Bringing it to life Tam back in 2016 before his death. His harvested sperm has been preserved. — Borneo Rhino Alliance In 2019, with the death of Iman, the last Sumatran rhino, Sabah declared the species to be extinct in the wild in Malaysia, leaving only a handful of the animals still existing in Indonesia. However, before Iman died, a team from the Leibniz Institute of Zoo and Wildlife Research in Germany successfully retrieved an egg from her to eventually be used for the purposes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). The egg was then taken to the Centre for Wildlife and Livestock Innovation at the Faculty of Sustainable Agriculture in University Malaysia Sabah in Sandakan. Iman, Malaysia's last female rhinoceros, pictured at Tabin Wildlife Reserve in Lahad Datu, Sabah, before her death. Her eggs were harvested and are currently preserved in a 'frozen zoo'. — Filepic/The Star Sperm had also been harvested from male rhino Tam, which had died a few months earlier. The plan then had been to have Iman's egg inseminated with Tam's sperm via IVF, and placed inside the uterus of another female rhino in Indonesia as surrogate. Although the plan eventually failed to come to fruition, will such genetic material – presumably stored safely away – be enough to bring back the Sumatran rhino in Malaysia? In the case of the dire wolf, International Islamic University's (IIUM) Prof Muhammad Lokman Md Isa points out that genetic engineering had been used to bring back an extinct species with fossilised material 'we have been lucky to find'. 'We then fuse the DNA from this fossilised material together with the DNA of another animal quite similar to the species or character of that extinct animal. 'So that's why if we are producing the clone of an extinct animal, maybe it's not 100% because we are just editing or inserting certain templates of the DNA of that ancient species into the template of the DNA of the species that we have now,' he explains. Since the DNA sequence of the extinct animal had to be modified with genetic engineering, Prof Muhammad Lokman clarifies that the product itself is no longer pure or natural anymore. 'So of course it will have a lot of problems. Maybe it will not be able to sustain itself. However, we cannot deny that kind of initiative, it's a good one.' Prof Muhammad Lokman believes the 'de-extinction' of species will, sooner or later, be a part of Malaysia's conservation strategy. — Photo provided However, when it comes to using the technology in the dire wolf case on the Sumatran rhinos – the last three of which were Iman, Tam and Puntung – Prof Muhammad Lokman is more positive. This is because a 'cell line', a population of cells derived from samples and which scientists can then grow in the laboratory, exists from the rhinos. These cells carry the full genetic blueprint of the original animal. Prof Muhammad Lokman – who is from the university's Institute of Planetary Survival for Sustainable Wellbeing based at IIUM's Kuantan campus – is part of a team working on using cells from the dead rhinos to produce sperm and eggs. The institute is also the location of the Malaysia's first 'frozen zoo', capable of storing biological samples carrying the genetic material of endangered animal species. In 2016, the frozen zoo reportedly collaborated with what was known then as the Borneo Rhino Alliance (Bora) to conserve Sumatran rhinos by obtaining the cells and tissues of the animals and storing them at the institute. 'We have the living cell from the rhinos, that is, the full, complete genome of their DNA. So that when we clone them to place in an enucleated egg – an egg which has had its nucleus removed – we can produce a fully grown clone of the animal as a total,' Prof Muhammad Lokman says. So, compared with the dire wolves, which had to have parts of their genome edited to bring them back to life, the chances of producing a cloned Sumatran rhino from a living cell with the full genomic information using the same technology will result in animals with better conditions, the professor points out. The frozen zoo On the institute's efforts and how far along it is in producing a cloned Sumatran rhino, he says it is now awaiting financial backing such as grants or donations due to the high cost of such experimentation. 'What we are trying to do is the in vitro maturation of the egg of an animal. We need to have a lot of eggs to produce the embryos. 'So we are now optimising producing or maturing the eggs in vitro. When we have optimised this method, we can try to produce the embryo outside the body, and then maybe transfer the embryo into a surrogate animal,' he says. In vitro maturation is a technique where immature egg cells (oocytes) are collected from the ovary and then matured in a lab dish, outside the body. The nucleus from a cell line is removed and inserted into an enucleated egg cell (oocyte). The egg is then stimulated to develop into an embryo – a clone of the original animal. 'We are now doing this with normal animals like rabbits, monkeys, and then, when we have established and optimised the procedure, we can use this on samples from our frozen zoo. 'The cell line is ready to be used and now, we are optimising the conditions of the donor ovum,' he says. Should the de-extinction of species be a part of the conservation strategy in Malaysia? 'Yes, definitely,' Prof Muhammad Lokman replies. 'It's going to be, sooner or later, the main part of the strategy. 'It's better that we have a frozen zoo so that we can keep all the materials and we can bring back [extinct species] whenever possible for the future generations.' Nevertheless, Prof Muhammad Lokman cautions that whatever extinct species is brought back, one has to bear in mind the need to understand the physical nature and functions of the animal within the ecosystem. 'If the animal could harm us and disturb our ecology, maybe we should not bring it back. 'In the case of the Sumatran rhinos, their main function in the ecosystem is to distribute the population of plants. Because their roaming territory is large, they distribute plant seeds via their stool, and so we have more variety of plants and crops in the forest with the rhinos,' he says. Working with both the Pahang government and the Wildlife and National Parks Department, IIUM's frozen zoo is in the midst of expanding the list of samples of wildlife in its collection, says Prof Muhammad Lokman. It has samples from the Malayan tiger, the Sunda pangolin, the Malayan gaur, the Malayan tapir, tembadau (Bornean banteng), the civet, and the sun bear, the professor details. Circumstances might not be right Payne believes that the technology used in the dire wolf case cannot be applied to the Sumatran rhinos yet. — Photo provided However, Bora chief executive officer Datuk Dr John Payne is of the opinion that the technology used in the dire wolf case cannot be applied to the Sumatran rhinos. Bora, now known as Bringing Back Our Rare Animals, was instrumental in a years-long campaign to save the Sumatran rhinos. It was involved, along with Universiti Malaysia Sabah and the Sabah Wildlife Department, in attempts to recover the Sumatran rhino through the application of assisted reproductive technology. Payne agrees with the other biologists that the dire wolves are just 'genetically modified grey wolves'. 'Even if one likes the general aim and methods, this cannot be applied to the Sumatran rhinoceros. 'Why? Because the genetic difference between the Sumatran rhino and all other living rhino species is very great – as much as the difference between, say, gorillas and orang utans,' he explains. The smallest of all the living rhino species, the Sumatran rhino ( Dicerorhinus sumatrensis ) is the only Asian rhino with two horns. Covered with long hair, they are also more closely related to the extinct woolly rhinos than any living rhino species. 'I think that, in theory, the methodology used with the grey wolf and dire wolf could be used. But the practice would be very different," says Payne. 'The problem, apart from any ethical issues that some people might have, is technical. The genetic differences between, say, the thylacine or the dodo, and its closest living relatives, are very great. 'At present and foreseeable levels of our technical ability, the differences are simply too great to imagine how the genome of one could be modified so significantly as to become the genome of the extinct species,' he says. Asked what Malaysian wildlife should be on a possible to 'de-extinct' list, Payne says the only one that springs to mind is the Sumatran rhino. Indonesia, he adds, has all the remaining animals now, and the ability to recover the numbers by well-managed captive breeding. On the programme to recover the Sumatran rhinos through reproductive technology, Payne explains that it was a programme headed by the Sabah Wildlife Department and financed by the Malaysian government. 'But success was predicated on full collaboration with Indonesia. 'Sadly, Indonesia did not want to collaborate, even to the extent of rejecting offers to send our rhinos and their egg cells to Indonesia,' he says. Perhaps with better cloning technology, whether it be the dire wolf case or other techniques, Malaysia won't have to depend on other countries to help save our wildlife.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Climate
- Yahoo
Dry condition results in below half average of runoff into Missouri River
OMAHA, Neb. (KCAU) — Officials said the April runoff into the Missouri River basin above Sioux City resulted in the yearly runoff forecast being lowered. According to a release from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the runoff for the month of April was 1.4 million acre-feet (MAF), only 48% of average. John Remus, chief of the Corps' Missouri River Basin Water Management Division, said that the runoff was below average in all reaches of the reservoir system. 'Drought or abnormally dry conditions are currently present in 75% of the basin, and conditions have worsened in the Fort Peck reach and parts of the Garrison reach in the last month. As a result, the runoff forecast was lowered by 1.9 MAF from last month,' Remus said. Story continues below Top Story: Catholic Diocese of Sioux City comments on first American Pope Crime: Sioux City man sentenced for stealing keys, taking off in car Sports: South Dakota softball advances to Summit League semifinals The yearly runoff forecast was lowered from 85% of average in early April to 78% of average at 20 MAF. Runoff is based on the current soil conditions, snowpack, and long-term precipitation and temperature outlooks. Mountain snowpack peaked earlier than normal and was also below normal. At the Fort Peck reach, there was 92% of average snowpack on April 5 with 69% remaining on May 4. The Garrison reach peaked at 95% of average on April 5 with 84% remaining. There is currently 50.4 MAF of water stored in the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System, 5.7 MAF below the top of the carryover multiple use zone. In mid-May, releases at Fort Peck will be increased to 10,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 24,000 cfs at Garrison. Those releases are expected to remain throughout the summer. Pair of Roses: 185th couple celebrating unique career milestones At Gavins Point Dam, releases are 25,000 cfs with 28,000 cfs forecast to be released. Releases will continue to provide navigation flow support at 4,000 cfs below full service for the first half of the season, the Corps said. The season started April 1 at the mouth of the river near St. Louis, Missouri, and the second half will start on July 1. There was 727 million kWh of electricity generated in March from the six mainstem power plants when there is normally 695 million kWh. Electricity generation for 2025 is expected to be 8.6 billion kWh compared to the long-term average of 9.4 billion kWh. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Times
07-05-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Times
There's No ‘Undo' Button for Extinct Species
'Over 10,000 years ago, a howl was lost to time.' So begins a recent promotional video by Colossal Biosciences, a biotechnology company, whose narrator speaks in a voice that sounds as if it, too, was resurrected from the past: a 1950s newsreel or biology-class explainer. Quick cuts of scientific B-roll — frozen blood in vials, a microscope, a white-coated hand jiggling a computer joystick — eventually give way to a lingering close-up of a wolf opening a bright, golden eye. 'Today,' the voice intones, 'it returns.' The video introduces viewers to Romulus and Remus, 'the first two dire wolves since the Pleistocene era.' In under three minutes, the very cute pups mature from tiny fluff balls, stumbling through their first steps, to regal youngsters romping in drifts of snow that accentuate their own (luxurious) white coats. 'Roughhousing may look like play,' the narrator tells us, 'but it's serious practice for life in the pack.' The voice then shows a third, younger pup, Khaleesi — 'the first female dire wolf brought back from extinction.' Colossal brands itself 'the de-extinction company' and has announced plans to bring back woolly mammoths and dodos and Tasmanian tigers, some of the biggest stars in the species extermination hall of fame. On a planet with as many as one million species at risk of disappearing, many within decades, the company is promising an undo button. Many media outlets, including People and CNN, breathlessly promoted Colossal's story; Time featured a cover portrait of Remus with a big red line through the word 'extinct.' On my Facebook feed, clickbait link aggregators trumpeted 'the world's first de-extinction' in posts that were awe-struck and joyful. Any commenter who questioned the company's narrative was shouted down as a hater. Amid the relentlessly grim news about the state of our planet, here was a tale of pure inspiration, of futuristic science triumphing over the tragic losses of a mythic past.
