Colossal Biosciences claims to have resurrected the extinct dire wolf through genetic engineering, but scientists and ethicists warn these designer wolves could threaten conservation efforts while failing to truly bring back an ancient species.
Quick Takes
- Colossal Biosciences engineered “Romulus and Remus” by editing genes in gray wolves, despite dire wolves differing by over 12 million genetic bases
- Scientists criticize the project as creating “designer dogs” rather than authentic dire wolves, questioning both scientific validity and ethical implications
- Critics worry de-extinction diverts resources and attention from saving thousands of currently endangered species
- The company has no plans to release the engineered wolves into the wild, raising questions about their ultimate purpose
- Conservationists fear de-extinction could create a “moral hazard” where extinction seems reversible, reducing urgency for traditional conservation
Designer Wolves or True De-extinction?
Colossal Biosciences has sparked controversy with its announcement of “successfully de-extincted” dire wolves, created by editing gray wolf DNA. The company named the genetically engineered pups Romulus and Remus after the mythological founders of Rome. However, scientists point out that the process involved modifying only 20 genes, a tiny fraction of the genetic differences between modern gray wolves and their ancient counterparts. The effort represents a significant advancement in genetic engineering technology, but raises fundamental questions about what constitutes true de-extinction.
Critics have been quick to dismiss the claim that these animals represent actual dire wolves. Stuart Pimm, a conservation biologist at Duke University, didn’t mince words, stating: “This is just a big dog with a few genes inserted from a once extinct wolf.” The genetic gap between gray wolves and dire wolves is substantial – comparable to the difference between humans and chimpanzees, according to some experts. This raises serious questions about whether such limited genetic editing can ever truly revive an extinct species or merely creates a novelty animal with select traits.
U.S.-based biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences claimed to have recreated the appearance of the extinct #DireWolf , which vanished over 10,000 years ago. The male dire wolf pups, Romulus and Remus, are six months old, and the female, Khaleesi, is three months old. pic.twitter.com/Teg9gcSXwZ
— Panda Paws (@Panda_Paws_) April 9, 2025
Conservation Concerns and Moral Hazards
The dire wolf project comes at a time when more than 41,000 species are threatened with extinction, including over 16,300 endangered species, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Many conservationists worry that focusing on extinct species diverts critical resources and attention from ongoing conservation efforts. They argue that the millions of dollars invested in de-extinction technologies could be more effectively used to protect habitats and save currently endangered species. This concern is amplified by the possibility that de-extinction projects might create a false impression that extinction is reversible.
Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum’s enthusiastic support for Colossal’s project has alarmed many conservationists. The Secretary criticized the endangered species list while praising de-extinction technology, suggesting a potential shift in conservation policy that some experts find concerning. Critics worry this technology could be misused as justification for weakening existing environmental protections under the premise that extinct species can always be brought back later through technology, creating what ethicists call a “moral hazard” in conservation efforts.
Ecological and Ethical Questions
Even if the technology develops to create more genetically accurate versions of extinct species, there remain profound questions about where and how these animals would live. Dire wolves existed in different ecosystems with prey species and environmental conditions that no longer exist. Evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin has raised concerns about introducing genetically engineered animals into existing ecosystems, warning of unpredictable consequences. Without appropriate habitats and social structures, these animals may face significant welfare challenges or risk disrupting existing ecological balances.
Colossal Biosciences maintains they have no immediate plans to rewild their engineered wolves, acknowledging the complex challenges involved. The company defends its work as developing genetic technologies that could also help conserve endangered species. They have already cloned critically endangered red wolves, which could potentially contribute to conservation efforts. Colossal CEO Ben Lamm emphasizes their goal of enhancing biodiversity, while the company’s chief science officer, Beth Shapiro, argues that creating healthy animals with selected traits of extinct species still has scientific and conservation value.
Technology vs. Conservation
The dire wolf project illustrates a broader debate about technological solutions to environmental problems. Some view de-extinction as analogous to the space race – a moonshot technology development effort that could yield unexpected benefits across multiple fields. Genetic technologies developed for de-extinction might eventually help save endangered species by increasing genetic diversity or adding adaptive traits. However, many conservationists advocate for focusing on proven strategies: habitat protection, pollution reduction, and human behavior change.
“This is about animal engineering; it’s not about resuscitating ancient species. The conversation is not, ‘Do we bring old species back?’ The conversation is, ‘We’re creating new kinds of creatures. We are modifying creatures in new ways. Should we be doing it?’ There’s a lot of science here that’s potentially very interesting, but given how [Colossal has] spun it, we’re not having that conversation,” said Shubin.
As Colossal continues its work on other extinct species, including the woolly mammoth and thylacine, the debate over the value, ethics, and ecological implications of de-extinction will only intensify. The company’s dire wolf project, regardless of whether it represents true de-extinction, has undeniably pushed forward the science of genetic engineering while raising profound questions about humanity’s relationship with extinct species and our responsibilities toward conservation efforts.
