Leading Scientists Acknowledge They Aren’t Creating Truly Miserable Wolves

On April 7, a prominent biological science organization announced that the genetically altered wolf is “the world’s first successful animal.” Many appeared to take this claim seriously. New Scientist was one of the few outlets to refute this assertion, clarifying that these were grey wolves enhanced through gene editing.

In a later interview, Colossal’s chief scientist, Beth Shapiro, seemed to concur, stating: “We cannot recreate anything that is identical to the extinct species. Our animals are grey wolves with 20 cloned gene edits,” as reported by New Scientist. “We’ve always communicated this. The term ‘miserable wolves’ irritates some people.”

Richard Grenier from Oxford University noted a significant shift from Colossal’s earlier messaging, interpreting Shapiro’s statement as a clear reflection of their scientific approach. “I see a stark contradiction between the statement’s content and their past communications and promotional efforts,” he remarked.

He referred to a major press release announcing the birth of a gene-edited wolf, which repeatedly labeled them as “miserable wolves.” Shapiro defended this characterization during an interview with New Scientist on April 7.

“We employ the concept of morphological species, asserting that if they visually resemble this animal, they are classified as such,” she explained at the time.

The appearance of gene-edited wolves as “miserable” remains uncertain. For instance, some evidence suggests that the original wolves had a reddish hue, contrary to the white coat depicted. Claudio Cirero from Oxford University pointed this out.

Despite statements from Cirero and other experts declaring that the gene-edited grey wolf is not a true representation of the extinct species, Colossal maintained its stance. “[W]E continue to support our designation of Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi as ‘disastrous wolves’,” they affirmed in a statement on X.

In a more recent interview, Shapiro reiterated that Colossal had always clarified that the animal in question was simply a gene-edited grey wolf.

“We did not obscure this fact. The backlash arose from our labeling them as miserable wolves,” she explained. “We clarified that they are grey wolves modified with 20 edits. We communicated this from the outset.”

Shapiro also attempted to distance the project from any implication that the possibility of bringing back extinct species might lessen the urgency for conserving endangered ones, a notion supported by some factions of the Trump administration. “Now it’s linked to the idea that we need not be concerned about extinctions. This is problematic,” she remarked.

“The crucial point here is ‘sudden’,” states Grenier. He indicates that it has been long recognized that if the public perceives de-extinction as feasible, support for conservation may dwindle. Colossal, he argues, should recognize this risk. Their website declares: “Extinction is a critical issue we face… and the solution is not simply to reverse it.”

While Colossal has made significant strides in scientific innovation, Grenier asserts that their claims are fundamentally flawed. “This is transformative, groundbreaking science. It goes beyond merely reversing extinction,” he concluded.