Latest news with #direwolves
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
How related are dire wolves and gray wolves? The answer might surprise you.
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. In a controversial announcement earlier this month, scientists with the company Colossal Biosciences claimed they have brought back dire wolves from extinction using genetic engineering. Dire wolves (Aenocyon dirus) lived in North America during the last ice age and died out around 12,500 years ago, but fossils have preserved enough of these predators' DNA for researchers to partly reconstruct their genome. The announcement drew criticism from paleogeneticists and other experts, who argued that the newly created animals — three snow-white pups named Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi — are only like dire wolves in appearance and so are not true dire wolves. To "resurrect" the dire wolf, Colossal scientists made 20 tweaks to 14 genes in a modern-day gray wolf (Canis lupus) genome, modifying characteristics like body size and hair color. "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, 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.' In addition to the tiny number of DNA changes, experts pointed out that dire wolves and gray wolves aren't closely related in evolutionary terms. While the two species share many physical traits and the wolf-pack social structure, a seminal study published in 2021 in the journal Nature indicated that dire wolves aren't technically wolves. Related: Reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone helped entire ecosystem thrive, 20-year study finds According to the study, dire wolves branched off from modern wolf-like canids — a group that includes gray wolves, coyotes (Canis latrans), dholes (Cuon alpinus), African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) and African jackals — roughly 5.7 million years ago. So just how closely related are dire wolves and grey wolves — and what does the best available evidence tell us about the evolutionary relationship between these species? The latest peer-reviewed research suggests that dire wolves and gray wolves are only distantly related, Mairin Balisi, a paleontologist and curator at the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology in California, told Live Science in an email. In the 2021 study, scientists found that dire wolves and gray wolves share a last common ancestor 5.7 million years ago during a period known as the late Miocene, said Balisi, who studies the evolution of mammalian carnivores but did not contribute to the 2021 study. The analysis, which was based on DNA extracted from five dire wolf fossils, "showed that dire wolves diverged from the ancestor of not just gray wolves, of not just the group comprising [gray wolves and their closest relatives], but of all wolf-like canids including African jackals," Balisi said. "This distant relationship justifies the genus name Aenocyon for dire wolves differing from the genus name Canis for most other wolf-like canids." The 2021 study revealed what was a decidedly blurry picture of canid evolution. "Previously scientists had interpreted dire and gray wolves to be sister species, or at least cousins through another extinct large wolf, Canis armbrusteri, because of strong similarity in their bones and teeth," Balisi said. C. armbrusteri lived in North America during the last ice age and was likely an ancestor of dire wolves, according to the study. Previous research also placed the split between dire wolves and gray wolves much later than the 2021 study, with dates ranging between 2 million years ago and 2.5 million years ago, Balisi said. The 2021 study clarified some aspects of canid evolution, but many questions remain unanswered. For example, it's still unclear which wolf-like canids are most closely related to dire wolves, Balisi said. It's entirely possible that dire wolves are more closely related to African jackals than gray wolves, she said, despite their physical appearance being closer to gray wolves, adding that "future analyses on more and/or higher-quality genomic data may shed more light on the fine-scale relationships among these canids." African jackals are divided into two species — the black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas), native to eastern and southern Africa, and the side-striped jackal (Canis adustus), native to sub-Saharan and southern Africa. The 2021 study found that African jackals diverged from other wolf-like canids around 5.1 million years ago, forming their own branch on the evolutionary tree approximately 600,000 years after dire wolves formed theirs. Fossils show that dire wolves were larger than modern-day gray wolves and had more robust jaws and teeth, which enabled them to take down larger prey. Current studies of canid evolution rely on these fossils to determine the relationships between species, but the record may have erased crucial information, Balisi said. "It is possible that other traits that don't fossilize as readily also set apart dire wolves from gray wolves today," she said. There is also a question mark over whether dire wolves and gray wolves ever interbred. While it is possible that they did, the 2021 study found no evidence for gene flow between the two species, or between dire wolves and coyotes, Balisi said. "Wolf-like canids do hybridize today — e.g., gray wolves and coyotes — so interbreeding between dire and gray wolves may have happened and just has yet to be detected," Balisi said. But gray wolves and coyotes are much more closely related to each other than gray wolves and dire wolves, so it may be that the latter two have evolved bigger reproductive differences, she said. Following Colossal's announcement, the company uploaded a paper to the preprint database bioRxiv with new (but not yet peer-reviewed) findings about the dire wolf's evolutionary history. RELATED STORIES —Wolves in Ethiopia spotted licking 'red hot poker' flowers like lollipops —Dogs may have domesticated themselves because they really liked snacks, model suggests —Yellowstone's 'queen of the wolves' killed by rival pack after living to 11 years old and having 10 litters of pups The results, based on two fossils dating to 13,000 and 72,000 years ago, suggest that dire wolves descended from a lineage that was itself born from interbreeding between two lineages: a sister lineage to the one that produced modern-day South American canids (Cerdocyonina) and a sister lineage to the one that produced the African wild dog. The research may shed light on how dire wolves evolved as a species, but it does not claim to rewrite the findings of the 2021 study. Overall, the new clues "may be a valid update to the literature," so long as they hold up to peer review, Balisi said. Regardless of whether peer review deems the study robust, the currently available evidence tells us that dire wolves and gray wolves are not closely related, which means that Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi are not dire wolves.
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."
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.
