Latest news with #deextinction
BBC News
3 hours ago
- Health
- BBC News
BBC Learning English - Learning English from the News / Woolly mice: Are woolly mammoths next?
(Photo via Colossal Biosciences) ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ The story Scientists have created a genetically modified mouse that's woolly. The researchers plan to use their woolly mouse to test out other genetic changes before they try to create genetically-altered, mammoth-like elephants in the future. The company, Colossal Biosciences, hope to use the new mammoths in the fight against global warming. Critics say the project is unethical and mainly an attempt to gain publicity. News headlines Woolly mice are a first step to resurrecting mammoths, but there's a very long way to go The Conversation Colossal CEO Ben Lamm says humanity has a 'moral obligation' to pursue de-extinction tech TechCrunch Do not be bamboozled by the new fluffy mouse Key words and phrases resurrect give something life again The actor has been trying to resurrect his career since his last film received terrible reviews. moral obligation a feeling that you have to do something because it is considered to be right I volunteer at a soup kitchen for homeless people – for me, it feels like a moral obligation. bamboozled tricked I got bamboozled by the car salesman and bought a more expensive model than I needed. Next If you like learning English from the news, click here.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Photo: Dire Wolf De-extinction
Dire wolves went extinct about 12,000 years ago. In April, biotech company Colossal Biosciences announced it had cloned three pups that resemble the long-dead creatures. Scientists used DNA from a 13,000-year-old tooth and a 72,000-year-old skull to make 15 key edits to the gray wolf genome and recreate dire wolf traits. Expected to grow to twice the size of gray wolves, the pups have wider heads, larger jaws, and stronger shoulders. The Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation has expressed interest in providing them a habitat in which to roam freely once again. The post Photo: Dire Wolf De-extinction appeared first on
Geek Girl Authority
26-05-2025
- Science
- Geek Girl Authority
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
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
'Our animals are gray wolves': Colossal didn't de-extinct dire wolves, chief scientist clarifies
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. On April 7, the biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences announced it had brought dire wolves back from extinction, explicitly stating it was "the rebirth of the once extinct dire wolf." Now, its chief scientist has clarified that those animals weren't really dire wolves. Three snowy white wolves, Khaleesi, Romulus and Remus, made global headlines when the biotechnology company claimed they were the world's first de-extincted dire wolves (Aenocyon dirus), brought back after over 10,000 years of extinction. Researchers were quick to criticize the claim as misleading, noting that the wolves were simply genetically modified gray wolves (Canis lupus). In a new interview, Colossal's chief science officer Beth Shapiro has confirmed that the "dire wolves" are indeed just gray wolves with 20 modified genes. However, she also argued that the company never tried to hide the wolves' identity. "It's not possible to bring something back that is identical to a species that used to be alive. Our animals are grey wolves with 20 edits that are cloned," Shapiro told New Scientist. "And we've said that from the very beginning. Colloquially, they're calling them dire wolves and that makes people angry." Related: 6 extinct species that scientists could bring back to life — and 1 they have already resurrected Shapiro's latest comment isn't a significant departure from what she and the company have said previously. Colossal argues that if they create an animal that looks like a dire wolf, then they can call it a dire wolf. Last month, Shapiro said in a Reddit video: "We chose to call them dire wolves because they look like dire wolves and reflect the key traits we found by sequencing their genome." Part of the controversy stems from there being lots of different definitions for a species. Shapiro previously told New Scientist that they are using the "morphological species concept," which means defining a species based on morphology, or appearance. However, most scientists work from the "biological species concept," which means a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. That means while animals in the same species may look the same, their appearance doesn't define them as a species. In the case of the dire wolf, it went extinct more than 10,000 years ago, so researchers haven't seen one. Furthermore, Colossal doesn't always explain its nuanced approach to naming animals in its communications. When Colossal unveiled its wolves, it released a statement — and other documents, posts and videos — that presented the animals as dire wolves, not genetically modified gray wolves. The company explained how it had edited the genes of gray wolves and detailed the process, but the top line was the birth of the "once extinct dire wolf," not a modified gray wolf. "We didn't ever hide that that's what it was," Shapiro told New Scientist. "People were mad because we were calling them dire wolves. Then they say to us, but they're just grey wolves with 20 edits. But the point is we said that from the beginning. They're grey wolves with 20 edits." Live Science approached Colossal for comment, and the company restated that it had brought back the dire wolf. "In our press release, we stated we made 20 gene edits to grey wolf cells," a spokesperson for the company said. "Grey wolves are the closest living relative to the dire wolves, as we showed in our paper. With those edits, we have brought back the dire wolf…" "We have also said that species are ultimately a human construct and that other scientists have a right to disagree and call them whatever they want to call them. Khaleesi, Romulus and Remus are the first dire wolves to walk the Earth in 12,000 years. They are doing amazingly well and are a testament to what we can achieve as we continue on our goal of bringing back the dodo, thylacine, and woolly mammoth, among other species." Colossal's scientists based their genetically modified wolves on dire wolf DNA, which they extracted from fossils. They then collected cells from gray wolf blood and modified those cells to resemble what they found in the dire wolf genome. Next, they inserted the modified cells' DNA into gray wolf egg cells, and put the resulting embryos into the womb of a domestic dog. RELATED STORIES —How related are dire wolves and gray wolves? The answer might surprise you. —Oldest-known North American woolly mammoth revealed in 'long-lost' ancient DNA —'We didn't know they were going to be this cute': Scientists unveil genetically engineered 'woolly mice' Genetically modifying the wolves was a long and complicated process, but Colossal only made 20 tweaks to 14 gray wolf genes, changing traits like hair color and body size. However, while the two species share a lot of the same DNA, there are many genetic differences between them. "Colossal has said that the gray wolf and dire wolf genomes are 99.5% identical, but that is still 12,235,000 individual differences," Nic Lawrence, a paleogeneticist and associate professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand, previously told Vox. "So a gray wolf with 20 edits to 14 genes, even if these are key differences, is still very much a gray wolf."
RNZ News
15-05-2025
- Science
- RNZ News
Return of the huia? Why Māori worldviews must be part of the ‘de-extinction' debate
By Nic Rawlence & Phillip Wilcox of There is growing international interest in bringing back some of New Zealand's extinct birds, including the huia. Photo: Supplied / Roseberys The recent announcement of the resurrection of the dire wolf generated considerable global media attention and widespread scientific criticism, but beyond the research questions, there are other issues we must consider - in particular, the lack of indigenous voices in discussions about de-extinction. It is undeniable that biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences achieved a major scientific breakthrough. It has successfully changed the genome of a vertebrate species, introduced desired traits and created apparently healthy hybrid wolf pups. The main scientific criticisms were that genetically engineering gray wolves with dire wolf traits doesn't constitute de-extinction and, regardless of the achievement, we still have to ask whether we should bring back extinct species in the first place. Given the company's goals of resurrecting species significant to indigenous groups, including the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) and the moa, it is vital indigenous views contribute to decisions. Colossal Biosciences' achievement shows the potential of new gene-editing technologies to contribute to conservation efforts. This could include introducing desirable traits into threatened species or removing harmful ones. In Aotearoa New Zealand, hapori Māori (tribal groups) are the kaitiaki (guardians) of many threatened taonga (treasured) species. There is growing international interest in the resurrection of some of New Zealand's extinct birds, including the moa, Haast's eagle and huia, despite Māori concerns. Their voices in this debate are crucial, as are those of other indigenous groups, when biotech proposals are relevant to them. Colossal Biosciences has an Indigenous council (made up of North American Indian nations) and has established an advisory committee for the thylacine de-extinction project with indigenous representation, but in our engagements with Māori from around the country over the past decade, we've found virtually no Māori support for the de-extinction of taonga species. One reason we have heard involves a lack of suitable habitats for de-extinct species. Most of Aotearoa New Zealand is highly modified, with only 25 percent of native forest remaining - this requires ongoing predator control. That means there are very few suitable sites to release de-extinct species. For some lost ecosystems, there is no suitable analogue at all, and the effort required to establish and manage sites would be substantial. There would also need to be ongoing financial resourcing to support kaitiaki responsibilities, which would be expected of Māori communities within whose rohe (traditional boundaries) de-extinct species might be released. In our view, kaitiaki prefer gene technology funding to be spent on applications that support their guardianship role, such as environmental DNA, or they would like it expanded for the management of remaining and often-threatened taonga species. Dire wolves successfully cloned by Colossal Biosciences. Photo: CNN/Colossal Biosciences Without new funding, there is a real opportunity-cost risk of money being pulled from other areas, potentially resulting in further extinctions of endangered taonga species. In all likelihood, maintaining a genetically diverse population of a de-extinct species - with at least 500 individuals - would be a challenging exercise, given how slowly New Zealand's taonga species breed. Without meaningful Māori support and involvement, the release of a de-extinct species would effectively constitute a breach of Article Two of te Tiriti o Waitangi - the Treaty of Waitangi. The te reo Māori version states Māori have exclusive rights to taonga. This is also the essence of the Waitangi Tribunal WAI262 claim that Māori have intellectual property rights over flora and fauna. Māori have whakapapa (genealogy) relationships with taonga species, and a moral obligation to look after their welfare and the taiao (environment) they are in. This has led to concerns that altering the whakapapa of an existing species to resemble another species is unnatural and disrespectful, compared to natural hybridisation. This could have negative consequences for hybrid species, as well as other organisms and the taiao. Hybrids may not be sufficiently adapted to existing threats - such as introduced mammalian predators - or the new environments they find themselves in. Conversely, they could be so well adapted, they disrupt the ecosystem and become a pest. There are long-held concerns that Māori have been excluded from conversations about applying gene technologies, despite the successful use of tikanga-based frameworks (customs) for evaluating specific uses of the technologies in individual cases. These concerns include potential biopiracy, bioprospecting and trademarking of taonga species by overseas companies. They are echoed in submissions to the draft Gene Technology Bill, which all but eliminates Māori consultation on the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Without substantive Māori involvement, internationally led and resourced de-extinction of a taonga species could well become yet another negative colonisation experience. Such conversations need to involve a wide range of Māori and employ tikanga-based protocols to ensure sufficiently thorough and holistic evaluation of potential de-extinction projects. There is currently nothing to stop biotechnology companies utilising specimens of taonga species housed in museums worldwide. We argue that addressing these issues and reaching a national consensus should be a prerequisite for any application of gene-editing technology in conservation, whether it is to suppress pest species or support struggling taonga species. Many of the concerns raised by Māori will no doubt be shared by indigenous people around the world. They need to be part of the conversation and critical commentary around de-extinction and potential reintroduction of organisms into the wild. Their knowledge of environmental management, which dates back hundreds to tens of thousands of years, is something we must learn from. This story was originally published on [ The Conversation.] Nic Rawlence is Associate Professor in Ancient DNA at University of Otago. Phillip Wilcox is Associate Professor in Quantitative Genetics, University of Otago.
