Dire Wolf Was Not Brought Back, Biologists Argue in New Paper
Two biologists argue that Colossal Biosciences did not bring back the dire wolf, but edited gray wolves to look more like the extinct animal. Their
Two biologists argue that Colossal Biosciences did not bring back the dire wolf, but edited gray wolves to look more like the extinct animal. Their paper, published November 11 in Biology Letters, says the distinction matters because changing an animal’s traits is not the same as recovering an extinct species.
Edited wolves, not returned dire wolves
Colossal used genetic edits to gray wolf cells and bred animals with features associated with dire wolves, including larger bodies, bigger teeth and paler coats. The company’s work drew attention as a possible example of “de-extinction.”
Marine biologist Andrew Davinack and biochemist Charlotte Daniels of Wheaton College in Massachusetts challenge that description. They call the mistake “lineage-genome conflation”: treating a species’ evolutionary lineage as interchangeable with its genome.
In their paper, the researchers write that new tools have revived interest in de-extinction, often presented as a technological reversal of species loss. They argue that those tools cannot recover an extinct species because extinction ends the species’ lineage.
What de-extinction claims mean
The debate turns on what “bringing back” an animal means. Colossal’s edited wolves have some dire wolf-like characteristics, but the researchers say that resemblance does not make them dire wolves.
Ancient DNA sequencing and comparative genomics can help scientists study extinct animals and identify genetic differences. Genome editing can alter living animals, as Colossal did with gray wolf cells. The paper argues that these methods do not restore the extinct lineage itself.
The distinction puts a boundary around a high-profile use of biotechnology: an animal engineered to resemble an extinct species may be a proxy, but the researchers say it is not that species returned from extinction.
