Scientists at a U.S. biotech firm are falsely claiming the ‘un-extinction‘ of dire wolves – which died out around 12,500 years ago.
SOUND ON. You’re hearing the first howl of a dire wolf in over 10,000 years. Meet Romulus and Remus—the world’s first de-extinct animals, born on October 1, 2024.
The dire wolf has been extinct for over 10,000 years. These two wolves were brought back from extinction using… pic.twitter.com/wY4rdOVFRH
— Colossal Biosciences® (@colossal) April 7, 2025
Dire wolves? Nah, bro.
Colossal Biosciences – which is a Dallas start-up specialising in de-extinction, used advanced genetic engineering to replicate the features of dire wolves. Many news outlets are naming it ‘worlds first true de-extinction event’.
However, it is not what it seems.
This is not a dire wolf. They cannot do de-extinction. They can just tweak living animals to have primitive features. This company is going to make designer zoo animals. They will be isolated, lonely, and a shadow of their loving relatives. Real scientists support conservation. https://t.co/HU0TOh3jtZ
— Brenen M Wynd Ph.D. (@brenenwynd) April 7, 2025
Scientists are calling it out for what it is – BS.
A nature paper from 2021 sampled 46 specimens, 5 of which yielded ancient DNA, and the largest genomes they recovered were 23%. I highly doubt colossal has the full genome.
— Brenen M Wynd Ph.D. (@brenenwynd) April 8, 2025
According to the firms website, they are also attempting to revive the wooly mammoth, using experiments on mice. Where are these (pretend) Woolly mammoths going to live when all the ice has melted due to the climate crisis?
Extinction means extinction
Scientists broadly agree that ‘de-extinction’ is not possible – especially not of dire wolves. According to Yale Environment 360:
The challenges begin with accurately mapping the extinct species’ genome. DNA starts to break down as soon as an animal dies. Any genetic blueprint from a museum specimen or from tissues found in permafrost will always be fragmented. The chances of perfectly recreating it are slim. A second problem is that animals have DNA in both their cell nuclei and in the cytoplasm outside the nucleus. This other type of DNA, mitochondrial DNA, is inherited from the mother during gestation. De-extincted animals don’t have mothers of their own species.
Other factors compound the difficulties. The microbial makeup of the surrogate womb would differ from the past. An infant mammoth or thylacine would be raised without siblings and by parents of a different species. Thanks to climate change, temperatures would be warmer. A new set of microbes and invertebrates would crawl over its skin. The behaviors and social environments that shaped the original species would be absent. The de-extincted animal may have visual similarities to the missing creature, but it would be far from the same thing.
The site also warns that de-extinction technology could divert funding from vital conservation work, create ‘new vectors for pathogens’ (hello global pandemic V2!), and make extinction less of a threat.
Earlier this year, Colossal announced that it had raised an additional $200m – taking the total they have raised to $435m.
In theory, analogue for species gone extinct could help drive ecological processes that benefit the broader ecosystem. Nevertheless, imagine how much useful conservation work could be done with that amount of money.
What’s more, a study found that diverting funds to ‘de-extinct’ species, reintroduce them, and conserve them, could in fact endanger existing species as well. Crucially, it identified that:
For every other species considered for de-extinction, reintroduction would at best be neutral but at worst harm up to 14 existing species
So, it might give people the fuzzy feels of righting a moral wrong, but the reality is that it could actually exacerbate the threats species face today.
Scientific hubris of mammoth proportions
More than 47,000 species are threatened with extinction. Yet tech bros are more interested in bringing back the ones that went extinct thousands of years ago, instead of protecting the planet and limiting future damage:
“De-extinction” is an arrogant mirage. It’s a false promise designed to dismiss alarm that whole ecosystems are going extinct with regularity. Delusions of godhood don’t fix capitalist climate destruction. https://t.co/S3mzJe1u2Z
— Tomrade (@_twils_) April 8, 2025
Living in Earth’s sixth extinction event be like:
Always thought it was weird how these genetic engineering efforts were more focused on bringing back extinct animals rather than helping conserve endangered ones https://t.co/ydgZAW0B9B
— Mayfuel🇵🇸 (@Mayfuel) April 8, 2025
These are not dire wolves: these are gray wolves with 20 edited genes. The way they are selling this is not only misleading, it doesn’t do justice to the science that they’ve done and the applications they will pursue. https://t.co/95fWmPXG6y
— Neil Shubin (@NeilShubin) April 7, 2025
Could ≠ should: I’ve seen this film before…
So here we are. Scientists really grew up on the 90s pop culture diet of dino-de-extinction disaster cautionary tale, and thought, let’s go God-mode:
The whole point of Jurassic Park is that we should do this, right?
Their excuse is that wolves are important to the ecosystem, but we’ve gotten along without these guys for 1000s of years. We’re adapted. They’re a disruption to the ecosystem. Why do so many not understand this? https://t.co/99j4Rqel34 pic.twitter.com/YHE0TDyZ6d
— Kerstin Koepl 🪻🐎🐰🕵️♀️ (@KerstinKoepl) April 7, 2025
Where does this end? Am I going to be fighting both tech bros and T-rex’s in 20 years?
We see no possible way this could go wrong https://t.co/EQaOH4fJYk
— Jurassic World (@JurassicWorld) April 7, 2025
we’re like 10 years away from the real life jurassic park opening and despite the fact that i have seen every single one of those movies multiple times and am fully aware of how the humans-and-dinosaurs-together situation goes i will be first in line on day one of opening lol smh https://t.co/XkEzDSbmvp
— Shea Serrano (@SheaSerrano) April 7, 2025
I don’t trust a tech startup to treat animals ethically and treating them as a way to live out your Game of Thrones fantasy is a great example of what I mean.
These aren’t dire wolves, they’re genetically edited grey wolves to match the pop culture vision of a dire wolf. https://t.co/40813yBxI7
— Nathan Cochran | 🦎⛵ (@Paleodude123) April 7, 2025
Dire wolves eating tech bros? Sounds familiar.
Putting the future of the planet in the hands of tech-bros is a recipe for disaster.
If Ian Malcolm were writing God Creates Dire Wolves, the opening would go something like this:
God creates dire wolves. God destroys dire wolves. God creates tech bros. Tech bros destroy God. Tech bros create (fake) dire wolves. Dire wolves hopefully eat tech bros. Women inherit the Earth.
Feature image via the Canary
