Extinction Made Headlines in 2025, But Failed to Meet Expectations

Colossal Biosciences, which advertises itself as “the world’s first and only anti-extinction company,” has garnered significant attention this year, although much of the buzz is detached from the truth.

Initially, the company made headlines with its woolly rat, allegedly “engineered to express several mammoth-like traits.” Victoria Herridge from the University of Sheffield observed that the long-haired mice featured in media reports were not created through genetic modifications drawing from mammoth DNA; rather, geneticists have been producing long-haired mice for years. Mice with mammoth-related genetic alterations showed less resemblance to their extinct counterparts.

Subsequently, major news broke with a corporate press release. Colossal announced the “resurrection” of the direwolf (Aenocyon Dylas), a wolf-like creature that was extinct in the Americas approximately 10,000 years ago. However, Colossal’s actual achievement was making 20 minor adjustments to the genome of gray wolf cells (Canis lupus), only 15 of which were informed by the direwolf’s genome, resulting in the cloning of these modified cells to create three wolf pups.

With millions of genetic differences existing between both species, this step merely nudges gray wolves closer to their ancient relatives. It remains an incredibly long journey to achieve anything resembling an exact genetic replica akin to something from Jurassic Park.

Most media outlets reported on the de-extinction claims without skepticism. New Scientist had the headline: “No, the direwolf is not coming back from extinction.”

Colossal’s Chief Scientist, Beth Shapiro, tried to provide justification based on appearance, stating “We use the concept of morphological species and assert that if it looks like this animal, then it is that animal,” as reported by New Scientist on April 7th.

Despite genetic distinctions, it remains uncertain if cloned gray wolves truly resemble the extinct species. The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s canine expert group stated on April 18, “There is no evidence that genetically modified animals are phenotypically different from gray wolves or similar to dire wolves.”

In a subsequent interview with New Scientist, Shapiro appeared to acknowledge this fact. “It’s impossible to resurrect the same species that existed. Our animal is a cloned gray wolf with 20 edits,” she clarified. “And we’ve been transparent about that from the start. People informally refer to them as direwolves, which understandably frustrates some.”

Following our article that cited Shapiro, Colossal reaffirmed its assertions: “With these edits, we are reviving the direwolf.”

However, apart from those directly involved with Colossal, New Scientist reports that no biologist believes the direwolf has truly returned. “As far as I’m aware, there’s no justification for labeling these genetically altered gray wolves as direwolves,” claims Vincent Lynch from the University at Buffalo, New York. “At least within my network, there is complete consensus that these assertions are unfounded.”

Lynch suspects that many people, outside the realm of biology, might accept these claims due to ongoing media portrayals that frequently present them as fact. He and others are concerned that the notion of reviving extinct species could detract from crucial efforts to protect endangered animals.

“People have genuinely bought into these assertions, but forecasting their impact on long-term conservation strategies is quite challenging,” Herridge stated.

In July, Colossal announced intentions to resurrect the flightless moa bird from New Zealand. Critics, including Nick Lawrence, a professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand, remarked that the company might only be able to create something resembling a “Frankenmore” rather than an authentic extinct bird.

Meanwhile, Lawrence, Lynch, Herridge, and other notable critics of Colossal’s de-extinction endeavors have become targets of an enigmatic smear campaign, a situation the company denies involvement in. Anonymous online posts and videos have surfaced, criticizing their expertise and credentials. Lynch stated this is excessive. New Scientist reported on July 31 about an additional attack on Lawrence, published on September 5, while Herridge encountered yet another dubious article.

Even critics concur that Colossal is making impressive progress. However, Richard Grenier, a professor at the University of Oxford, insists that discussions surrounding the de-extinction of endangered species are distractions from the more significant challenge posed by humanity’s growing capability to alter animal genomes on a large scale. “We will need to have another societal conversation regarding what we find acceptable and what we don’t,” he remarked.

“There might be specific instances where such technology could assist in the genetic rescue of bottleneck populations, adding some conservation benefit, but it will always be highly specialized and costly.”