A Biotech Firm Says Its Genetic Tweaks of a Wolf Amount to ‘De-Extinction.’ What Does This Mean For Living Species?

Since time immemorial, animal and plant species have performed an evolutionary dance with the environment around them, developing adaptations to respond to shifts in the climate and landscape. 

But there is one factor that can permanently halt this ever-changing waltz: extinction. 

Now, a U.S.-based biotechnology company is challenging this fundamental truth—arguing that extinction may not be as eternal as we once thought. On Monday, Colossal Biosciences announced that it had used a complex genetic process to bring back the dire wolf—an imposing lupine that roamed North America long ago before the species met its demise. 

The process, which the company dubs “de-extinction,” marks “the first time in human history” that such a feat has been accomplished, according to Colossal’s website. This announcement has been met with near-equal parts excitement and skepticism by the general public and scientific community. Most experts agree that these animals aren’t truly dire wolves, but rather a genetically tweaked version of modern-day gray wolves.

Meanwhile, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum lauded this “de-extinction” technology for its potential conservation implications. In a speech on Thursday, he used the scientific breakthrough as a chance to applaud innovation—and criticize regulations associated with environmental laws. This comes amid attempts from the Trump administration to substantially weaken the key law that aims to prevent extinction.

Experts agree biotechnology could help protect biodiversity in the face of climate change. But many are concerned that framing “de-extinction” as a conservation tool comes with inherent risks, particularly if people believe we can simply bring species back from the dead if they are lost. 

The Dire Wolf Debate: People who have watched HBO’s “Game of Thrones” series (or read the books) are likely familiar with dire wolves, prominent creatures in the show’s fantasy world. But these animals existed in reality, too, long ago. The oldest record of the wolf dates back 250,000 years, and scientists estimate that the creature went extinct around 10,000 years ago. This was likely due to a lack of prey, though exact reasons remain unclear. 

While reports from some major news outlets claim that the dire wolves are “back,” many scientists stress that the creatures Colossal has engineered are not the same as their ancient counterparts. To engineer these animals, the company’s researchers used genetic editing techniques to alter 20 genes of gray wolves—close genetic relatives of dire wolves— that would express certain characteristics of the ancient animal. Then, they implanted embryos of these edited cells into surrogate hounds, which eventually yielded three healthy wolf pups with fluffy white fur.  

But calling this process de-extinction is “fundamentally misleading,” Phil Seddon, a professor of zoology at the University of Otago in New Zealand, told me. “You could say it’s 99.99 percent gray wolf with … 0.001 dire wolf characteristics in there.” 

The Colossal team too recognizes that its genetically engineered animals are not an exact copy of extinct animals. 

Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s chief science officer, told me over email that “not only is the DNA not exactly the same, but animals are also what they are because of their interaction with their environments, which are also different. But an exact replica or facsimile was not our goal. They represent our best technological attempt to restore an extinct species’ functional presence in today’s world.” 

Amid this technical debate, there is a broader conversation to be had about conservation implications. Colossal has several other extinct species on its revival roster, with ongoing projects related to woolly mammoths, dodo birds and Tasmanian tigers. Scientists I spoke with had some concerns about these efforts, primarily related to one major question: What happens after you bring them back? 

“It is not a conservation success to clone some organisms if the only place to keep them is in a lab or zoo or a small preserve. The goal is ultimately to have organisms … in ecosystems that are appropriate to them,” Ronald Sandler told me. He’s a professor of philosophy and director of the Ethics Institute at Northeastern University. “That requires habitat protection or restoration.”

Colossal is currently hosting the wolves at an undisclosed preserve and stated it has no intention of breeding or releasing them into the wild. However, company officials said they want to release future animals into certain ecosystems, if they can successfully engineer them. 

Experts say this prompts another question: If extinct or genetically modified species re-enter the animal kingdom, would they face the same risks that led to their eradication in the first place? 

“These biotech techniques in no way address the causes for why we have an extinction crisis or species are at risk,” Sandler said. “They don’t address climate change, habitat fragmentation, overuse, over exploitation.”

Say the dire wolves were to be released in areas around the United States. Christopher Preston, an environmental philosopher at the University of Montana, doubts they would be well-received, given the tense dynamic already playing out between humans and wolves out West. 

“The politics of gray wolves on federal lands is just a very bitter, hard fought politics. And that’s not going away. In fact, recently it’s gotten worse in the Rocky Mountain states,” Preston told me. “So it does not seem very plausible to imagine that dire wolves are being recreated to restore some kind of ecological function on the landscape.” 

Seddon also noted that the potential downstream expense of managing these animals if they are released could be high. A 2017 paper he co-authored concluded that costs associated with releasing “de-extinct” animals on public lands may even pull funding away from conservation efforts for existing endangered species. 

Love Dalén, a member of Colossal’s board of scientific advisors, told The New Yorker that the company’s current de-extinction efforts are probably not pulling funding away from other conservation projects because its investor pool is mostly coming from the tech community. 

Political barriers aside, Seddon said, species that existed in the past may no longer fit into an ecological niche in the present, particularly in the face of climate change. To address this, Colossal said that the company is building out conservation assessment plans evaluating a variety of factors—from historic habitat to climate—before any rewilding takes place. 

De-Extinction or Distraction? Certain biotechnology techniques have already been integrated into modern-day conservation as gene-editing tools continue to advance at a rapid pace. 

For example, scientists successfully cloned an endangered black-footed ferret using a tissue sample from a deceased, preserved ferret to help introduce genetic diversity into the population, which faces risks from inbreeding. The decades-long project is led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but Vox recently reported that job cuts and funding freezes at the program under the Trump administration could hinder its success. 

In a separate project, Colossal recently announced that it had cloned four red wolves, which its officials say could eventually help introduce genetic diversity to the endangered red wolf populations in North Carolina. The company has partnered with dozens of environmental groups such as Save the Elephants and WildArk. It also employs 132 scientists and funds 40 postdocs at other institutions, The New Yorker reports. Other organizations, like the nonprofit Revive and Restore, are working to obtain and preserve genetic material to ensure it is available for future projects. 

“De-extinction” takes this one step further, focusing on species that have already been eradicated. Scientists, environmentalists and politicians are at odds with how this concept should be integrated into modern-day conservation efforts. 

“From start to finish in the de-extinction process, there will be examples of innovations that can be immediately applied to biodiversity conservation,” Colossal’s Shapiro said. “We will discover links between genes and traits that are relevant to helping species adapt.”

For his part, the interior secretary said in a recent post on X that “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.” 

Burgum then took aim at the Endangered Species Act, which ensures federal protections for vulnerable animals and plants in the country. Historically, the ESA has posed barriers for development projects that could impact vulnerable animals or plants. The Trump administration has issued several executive orders that would undermine the law’s ability to prevent extinction. 

“The Endangered Species List has become like the Hotel California: once a species enters, they never leave. In fact, 97 percent of species that are added to the endangered list remain there. This is because the status quo is focused on regulation more than innovation,” Burgum said. “The only thing we’d like to see go extinct is the need for an endangered species list to exist.”

However, Northeastern University’s Sandler said that pitting innovation against regulation is a “false dichotomy.” 

“It’s never innovation by itself that gets you beneficial social or ecological outcomes,” he said. “It’s always innovation in combination with good social practices or policies or institutions or governance.”

Critics of de-extinction have pointed out that the concept itself could come with a psychological risk: People may believe that if a species goes extinct now, then we can revive it later. This could downplay the urgency related to the biodiversity crisis, according to a 2018 study. 

In an Interior meeting on Wednesday, Burgum said: “I mean, pick your favorite species and call up Colossal, and instead of, you know, raising money to get animals on the endangered species [list], let’s figure out a way to get them off. You want carrier pigeons? Let’s bring them back. You want dodos? Bring them back. Kiwi? Bring them back.” 

(Kiwis are endangered but not extinct.)

I reached out to the Department of the Interior for comment about how “de-extinction” efforts could impact species conservation in the U.S., the debate around whether the dire wolf was actually a “revival” and Burgum’s remark about the kiwi. The agency didn’t answer those questions directly, but here is what a senior public affairs specialist emailed me: 

“Advancements in genetic technologies, such as the efforts to clone the dire wolf, underscore the potential of biobanking to revolutionize wildlife conservation. By preserving genetic materials today, we equip future generations with the tools necessary to restore and maintain biodiversity. This approach aligns with our commitment to stewarding natural resources responsibly, ensuring that our actions today support a sustainable and thriving ecosystem for the future.”

Colossal’s Shapiro said that the company’s technology could be a tool to work alongside existing conservation efforts. 

“Importantly, we are not proposing that de-extinction is a silver bullet to solve today’s extinction crisis. We are definitely not suggesting that de-extinction is a replacement for traditional approaches to conservation,” she said in her written statement. “50% of species are threatened with extinction today. We desperately need new tools that can help species adapt at a pace that keeps up with the pace of habitat change. Losing so much biodiversity is not a risk that I want to take.” 

Experts have pointed out that the widespread media coverage and excitement around the dire wolf could help drum up enthusiasm and awareness of wildlife protection. But Sandler believes that people aren’t diving deep on some of the crucial questions related to conservation. 

“I don’t think the right questions to ask are, is this a dire wolf, or is this cool? It is definitely cool,” he said. “The question is, how does this contribute to our capacity to respond to the extinction crisis and to the extinction of specific species?” 

We shouldn’t let a cool bit of biotechnology distract us from “all the other kinds of conservation activities that are crucial,” he added. 

More Top Climate News 

A recent study found strong evidence that climate protests influence public opinion and media coverage positively. At times, these protests can even sway voting behavior; for example, researchers found that the Green Party in Germany received more votes in areas where climate protests took place, Kate Yoder reports for Grist. However, Dana Fisher, a sociologist at American University, told Grist that things may shift under the Trump administration as “political stakes for protest, and the risks around protest as well as the tactics that will work and won’t work, are changing quite substantially.” 

Devastating rains and flooding earlier this week have killed dozens of people in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Saikou Jammeh reports for The New York Times. The damage was mostly concentrated in the capital city of Kinshasa, which has a river running through it that overflowed and destroyed many homes. The rain has stopped for now, and government officials say that they won’t be able to get an accurate assessment of the true damage and death toll until the floodwater recedes. 

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it is axing millions of dollars in federal funding to a climate research center at Princeton University that is affiliated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The administration’s reason? It could lead to “climate anxiety,” officials told The New York Times. The program focuses on studying topics like sea level rise, flooding and atmospheric changes. This is part of a broader push from the Trump administration to gut funding for climate research programs, which has sparked backlash from the scientific community, as my colleagues recently reported.