Recently, Colossal Biosciences announced the birth of three genetically modified wolf pups, claiming to have “de-extincted” the dire wolf. However, these animals are not true dire wolves (Aenocyon Dirus) but rather gray wolves (Canis Lupus) with minor genetic edits intended to mimic certain dire wolf traits. This distinction is crucial, as it underscores the importance of scientific accuracy in public discourse.
The dire wolf and the gray wolf diverged approximately 5.7 million years ago, belonging to entirely different genera. A 2021 study co-authored by Colossal’s current Chief Science Officer, Dr. Beth Shapiro, highlighted this significant evolutionary separation, emphasizing that dire wolves were not closely related to gray wolves. Despite this, Colossal now suggests a 99.5% genetic similarity between the two species based on unpublished research, a claim that lacks peer-reviewed validation and raises concerns about scientific transparency.
Colossal’s approach involved editing 14 genes in the gray wolf genome to express 20 traits associated with dire wolves, such as larger size and pale fur. While this showcases advancements in gene-editing technology, it falls short of resurrecting an extinct species. The resulting animals remain predominantly gray wolves, both genetically and behaviorally.
The portrayal of these genetically modified wolves as “de-extincted” dire wolves is misleading and potentially detrimental to public understanding of science. Such narratives can divert attention from pressing conservation issues, like habitat preservation and the protection of endangered species. For instance, the red wolf (Canis Rufus), a critically endangered species native to the southeastern United States, could benefit more directly from conservation efforts and genetic research aimed at enhancing its survival prospects.
Moreover, the ethical implications of creating genetically modified animals for the sake of spectacle cannot be overlooked. The welfare of these animals, their ecological impact, and the potential for unforeseen consequences must be carefully considered. Responsible science communication should prioritize accuracy and the broader implications of research endeavors.
In conclusion, while advancements in genetic engineering and synthetic biology hold real potential for conservation, we believe that bold claims should be met with bold accountability. The dire wolf remains extinct and what has been created is not a resurrected relic of the past, but a genetically altered gray wolf with selected traits meant to resemble an animal that disappeared over 10,000 years ago.
At The Big Bad Project, we stand with science, but we stand with science that is transparent, peer-reviewed, and rooted in integrity. Public trust in conservation, genetics, and wildlife research is fragile, and it’s not strengthened by sensational headlines or unverified claims. When a company’s own Chief Science Officer previously co-authored a peer-reviewed paper highlighting the deep genetic divergence between gray wolves and dire wolves, only to now walk that back without publicly shared data, it sets a dangerous precedent.
We believe that responsible science doesn’t just ask what’s possible, it asks what’s ethical, what’s needed, and who is served by the story being told. If gene editing has a place in conservation, it should be to support existing, endangered species through practical, well-tested applications, not to create spectacle or confusion for the sake of publicity. The animals deserve better. The science deserves better. And so does the public.
