Dire wolves are back from extinction? Nonsense and poppycock
Describing genetic engineering as de-extinction is irresponsible and dangerous.
We usually talk about AGI here at the Center for AGI Investigations, but sometimes things that have nothing to do with artificial intelligence lie so close to the heart of our mission that we can’t ignore them.
Recent claims made by Colossal Laboratories and Biosciences, a for-profit genetics research company, fall into this category.
According to Colossal: “On October 1, 2024, for the first time in human history, Colossal successfully restored a once-eradicated species through the science of de-extinction. After a 10,000+ year absence, our team is proud to return the dire wolf to its rightful place in the ecosystem. Colossal’s innovations in science, technology and conservation made it possible to accomplish something that's never been done before: the revival of a species from its longstanding population of zero.”
Bullshit
Sorry to use such crass terminology, but there’s no other way to put it. What Colossal has accomplished, specifically, is the genetic modification of a grey wolf. The dire wolf is extinct and will always be extinct.
They did not splice ancient dire wolf DNA with living DNA in order to "resurrect" or “de-extinct” the dire wolf species. Nor did they “use” ancient dire wolf DNA to modify existing DNA to create a living copy.
Colossal genetically-engineered a grey wolf to exhibit the features of a dire wolf. Period.
This isn’t my opinion. It’s a matter of fact. Once a species has gone extinct it can not be brought back. That’s what extinction means. Claims to the contrary are made by two types of people: those speaking in purely theoretical terms and those who are selling something.
Marketing hype
In this case, Colossal is trying to sell its research. It says it can de-extinct a number of species, reverse climate change, and save the world. And all it needs is more money. This, despite its current $10 billion valuation.
The whole “de-extinction” rhetoric is marketing speak. They can’t just do “genetics research” like everyone else, because they’re a for-profit company without a product. Their entire business model is marketing.
In 2021, for example, it claimed it would produce a living Wooly Mammoth within six years. Earlier this year, we saw a wooly mouse. Now we’re seeing genetically-modified grey wolf pups.
The goalposts are moving at an astounding rate.
Anyone who thinks we’ll see a wooly mammoth in the next two years should probably hedge their bets. An elephant would need to be impregnated with a mammoth calf this year in order to deliver on that six year timeline.
This isn’t the first time I’ve pushed back against Colossal’s claims. Back in 2021, I wrote about their brazen plan to cure herpes and turn Siberia into a grassy plainsland by resurrecting the wooly mammoth:
“This is a for-profit startup and it exists to make money. We’re about as likely to have woolly mammoths walking the Earth in six years as we are aliens — it could happen, but I’d bet against it. … This company and its public entrance reminds me a lot of Elon Musk’s Neuralink. The science is sound – Church is one of the Nobel-winning architects of CRISPR gene-editing techniques – but the timeline and goals are wackier than a suspension bridge made out of jello and spaghetti. I truly hope my instincts are off on this one.”
(For whatever reason, the link to that article is now broken. But you can check it out in full on the wayback machine here).
Dangerous rhetoric
Just last month Colossal made news with its adorable “wooly mouse.” It’s telling that a company that was certain it would make wooly mammoths in six years spent four making a fuzzy rodent instead. At least the mouse was cute.
Fast forward to today, and Colossal’s “de-extincted dire wolf” claims have managed to captivate the world. At my last count, there were at least 50 news articles passing on Colossal’s claims as fact.
The story managed to blow Joe Rogan’s mind, thus creating a knock-on effect with his listeners. Elon Musk, responding to Rogan on X.com, called the work “cool.” The New Yorker published a headline today stating “THE DIRE WOLF IS BACK,” in all caps. And Time Magazine will apparently run “The Return of the Dire Wolf” as its cover piece on May 12.
Meanwhile, scores of scientists have called the claims untrue.
Let me be clear: genetic engineering is important, necessary scientific work. But, claiming that you can reverse extinction is not only demonstrably wrong, it’s dangerous.
The difference between genetic engineering and de-extinction isn’t just a scientific or semantics issue. There’s no way to bring dire wolf DNA back to life. Even if we fine-tune a grey wolf to be exactly like what we think dire wolves would have been like, they’re still designer animals that do not share the exact same DNA as ancient dire wolves.
If policymakers and other scientists begin to believe the rhetoric that genetic modification is the same as de-extinction, then we risk living in a world where protecting the animals we still have becomes more than a zero-sum game.
And it’s not. When a species goes extinct, that’s it folks. It’s over. Old DNA breaks down and can’t be reused. All scientists can do with fossilized or preserved ancient DNA is modify existing DNA to resemble it. This means, no matter how close a copy we get, it’s not the same species.
Even a modicum of critical thinking should tell us that. We have DNA libraries for countless species. And thousands of researchers around the world have access to the exact same tools that Colossal is using. The fact that a for-profit lab is the only one making such ludicrous claims should be telling in itself.
The same logic that makes people think a de-extincted species can be resurrected by modifying existing DNA applies to the notion that you can upload your mind to a computer and live forever.
But that’s not how things work. Copying part of something doesn’t make it exist twice. It just makes a new thing that’s similar to the old thing. And, in this instance, they didn’t even copy the original. They used its degraded DNA as a blueprint to create a new wolf by modifying the DNA of an existing wolf.
Why does this matter so much? Because no matter how many people who understand what’s going on try to explain the real science, we’re no match for Joe Rogan, Time Magazine and the New Yorker. As long as they’re carrying water for Colossal voices of reason will get shouted down.
And when millions of people are led to believe these outlandish claims about de-extinction, we risk creating a social mandate against protecting our environment.
Hell, if Colossal can bring back the dire wolf, who cares if the Amazon Rain Forest gets chopped down? We can just make more parrots, snakes, and crocodiles. And, if economic policies in support of industrialization and resource exploitation cause the blue whale or the three-toed sloth to go extinct, who cares? We’ll cook up a new batch next week.
If it sounds like I’m being harsh or crass, consider these words from Time Magazine’s coverage of the dire wolf: “these pups were the first to produce a howl that hadn’t been heard on earth in over 10,000 years.” Colossal’s chief animal scientist said “For me, it was sort of a shocking, chilling moment.”
Even as I’m writing this article, I can’t help but think that’s the most romantic thing I’ve ever read. Our earliest human ancestors would have heard that howl. Evidence suggests that the first animals to lie beside our campfires were wolves. I want to believe. It would feel good to believe.
But the point of science shouldn’t be to win hearts.
This situation reminds me of how the people who kept and abused exotic animals in the US used to bring baby tigers and lions to Capitol Hill whenever they had to answer allegations of mistreatment. The practice was called “cub petting” and it was implemented specifically to distract people from thinking about the reality of the animals’ situation.
And it’s almost certainly the most successful marketing tool ever employed by serial animal abusers since the advent of the circus.
While I do support the use of lab animals for some research, I think exploiting animals to market genetic engineering research and framing that research as “de-extinction” is both irresponsible and dangerous.
Read more: Trump’s tariffs likely based on faulty chatbot math
Art by Nicole Greene