I wasn’t going to write about the recent (early April) claims that Colossal Biosciences had successfully recreated (de-extincted) the dire wolf, as the reviews of those claims have been extensive, and my voice adds very little to that discourse. However, some of the specific responses to, and potential repercussions of this accomplishment warrant comment.

Back in early April, Colossal was all over the news with claims that the three white, fluffy, photogenic wolf pups they had bred through gene editing were in fact living dire wolves – recreations of a species that has been extinct for about 13,000 years. However, though they are charismatic, they are NOT dire wolves, but genetically modified gray wolves. (The situation is somewhat akin to modifying the genome of a black bear to make it bigger and browner, and calling that a grizzly).

Despite the ongoing debate around the science behind Colossal’s accomplishment, several members of the Trump administration have rapidly applauded the technology. Because we now have the tech to de-extinct long-dead animals, they say, we can now justify slashing protections on still-living, endangered and protected species.

Core Argument: Innovation Over Regulation

On April 9, 2025, at a livestreamed conference with Interior Department employees, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum argued that innovation, rather than regulation, is what will save endangered species. By itself, this isn’t entirely a controversial statement. We humans have consistently embraced new technology to support wildlife conservation, and some elements of the gene editing capability that Colossal has advanced may very well prove to be beneficial. Cloning has already proved beneficial to conservation of the black-footed ferret, for example, allowing conservationists to diversify the gene pool in a limited population. Gene editing also has the potential to address genetic diseases and the complications arising from inbreeding in a limited population (such as the Red Wolf). I have no doubt that Colossal is learning from its de-extinction efforts, and improving some techniques that may be positively applied to conservation science.

But Burgum went a step further. “If we’re going to be in anguish about losing a species, now we have an opportunity to bring them back,” he said. “Pick your favorite species and call up Colossal.” He added that we now have the opportunity to “celebrate removals from the endangered list — not additions”.

The context here is alarming. Even before Colossal made the announcement, the Fish and Wildlife Service (which falls under Burgum at Interior) sent a proposal to the White House to change the definition of what it means to “harm” a species protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The proposal argues that habitat destruction should not be considered as a “harm” for the purposes of the act, and as a result we can prioritize the economic interests of extractive industries (oil, gas, timber) over wildlife habitat. Republicans in Congress have continued to argue that current rules hamper economic development and infringe on the rights of states and private landowners. The administration has also reinstated the Endangered Species Committee, a group critics call “the God Squad”, which is granted the authority to override wildlife protection guidelines in favor of economic development, even if they believe such an action will directly lead to species extinction.

Taken together, these activities and Burgum’s immediate embrace of Colossal’s “innovation” suggest that, whether he believes it or not, he’s directly selling de-extinction as a technological “fix” to eliminating existing protections.

Questionable Technology

It is critically important to recognize that Colossal’s claims, and Burgum’s declaration of technological triumph, are based on an extremely shaky foundation. Multiple scientists and experts have loudly denounced the claim that these adorable white wolves are anything other than genetically tweaked, modern gray wolves.

By referencing dire wolf genetic material taken from fossilized teeth and bone, the Colossal team determined that the gray wolf is the closest living relative. So, using the dire wolf genome as a template, and a domestic dog as a surrogate mother, Colossal used gray wolf embryos and the gene editing tool CRISPR to modify specific genes. Specifically, they made 20 edits to 14 genes to match the most prominent physical characteristics of the dire wolf. The team deliberately chose NOT to edit certain genes because they were concerned those changes might generate negative effects, such as the potential for blindness or deafness. Scientists point out that even with a genome that is 99.5% equivalent, dire wolves and gray wolves differ by almost 12 million genetic differences. The effect of twenty carefully chosen edits, critics argue, is more like the creation of a designer dog, modifying specific physical traits, than the creation of an entirely new (extinct) species.

Despite these criticisms, Colossal continues to claim that it has created “the world’s first successfully de-extincted animal”. They are now advertising plans to restore the dodo, the wooly mammoth (which they argue could be raised in captivity as a source of meat, hair, and possibly legal ivory), and the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger). The idea of seeing these animals alive again does generate some excitement, in a Jurassic Park sort of way (though – large scale mammoth farms, really??), but Colossal also stops short of claiming that they can exactly reproduce these animals, saying instead that they plan to make functional equivalents – essentially new animals that they hope can fill the ecological niches of extinct species.

The contradictions here become clear fairly quickly. Colossal is essentially advertising that they can create bespoke creatures for specific behaviors and habitats based on their interpretation of the dominant characteristics that are decipherable in the genetic code, using extinct animals as a template. But they admit (when pressed) these are NOT duplicate animals, while continuing to claim that they have de-extincted the dire wolf. (Occasionally using qualifiers like, “effectively”, “essentially”.) The best outcome is a set of designer animals that may look and act like an extinct animal, without actually recreating that animal. I suppose it’s fair to ask how close is close enough, but it’s also fair to ask, “Why do any of this?”

Meanwhile, our leaders are claiming we can just call up Colossal to recreate whatever we want, and therefore we can stop trying to protect what we have if there’s an economic burden to it. Apparently we’d rather pay to recreate a facsimile in a lab than to try and keep current populations alive. It’s a ludicrous argument.

The Moral Hazard

Scientists and conservationists have long feared that “de-extinction” work, in general, creates a moral hazard: it could give regulators license to weaken protections for currently existing species under the assumption they can be brought back later. Burgum’s words show these words are well-founded, as he explicitly cites Colossal’s claims to justify reducing protections. He’s relying on marketing hype and technological exaggeration to justify polices that could accelerate the extinction of currently living animal species.

Again, Colossal has absolutely made some breakthroughs. Cloning is not easy, and gene editing at the embryonic level in such a way as to directly modify the resulting animal is far more complex than genetically modifying a plant. They have advanced the science of these techniques, and there may very well be ways that genetic modification can help address challenges with endangered populations. But they have absolutely NOT recreated dire wolves. The idea that this technology gives us carte blanche to ignore threats to living, existing animals on the basis of some sort of “get out of jail free” card to recreate a creature from scratch is extremely misguided. Frankly, I don’t believe that Burgum actually believes that this technology exists in the way he describes it, rather I believe he just doesn’t care about environmental protection. Colossal’s accomplishment merely provides an opportunity, a smoke and mirrors excuse to claim that destruction of wild animals and their habitat is somehow reversible.

In my opinion, the focus should remain on protecting the biodiversity we have now rather than relying on unproven or misleading promises of future technological fixes. We know very well what we have to do, and the work that we have to put in, to conserve the environment, our planet’s wildlife, address pollution, climate change… it’s all the same issue, and we continue to arrive at remarkably similar “solutions” wherein we’d rather place our bets on a technological breakthrough rather than actually protect what we have. There are no quick fixes. De-extinction is not a thing. It’s not easier to inhabit Mars than to change our behavior and fix the planet we have. At some point, we have to be willing to put value on things that aren’t measured in profit. I welcome technological advancement, every tool is valuable (well, most are) – but if we continue to grasp at technological straws in order to excuse our unwillingness to protect what we have, we’re going to fail to meet the increasingly critical challenges that WE face as a species.

And, who is going to de-extinct us?

Get Out There