Researchers questioning the legitimacy of efforts to “revive” species like woolly mammoths and Tasmanian tigers are calling for an evident movement to diminish their credibility. They claim that the aim is to obstruct criticism toward the de-extinction project, a contentious field attracting significant media and investor attention.

Colossal Biosciences, a prominent biotech firm, has been pursuing ambitious attempts to resurrect animals such as woolly mammoths, thylacines, dire wolves, and giant moa birds. Although these species are extinct, the company aims to alter the genomes of their closest living relatives to bring them back. Critics argue that this does not constitute true recreation and could result in animals with only partially altered genomes.

Vincent Lynch from the University at Buffalo, New York, Flint Dible from Cardiff University, UK, Victoria Heridge from the University of Sheffield, UK, and Nic Rawlence from the University of Otago in New Zealand have all publicly criticized Colossal’s initiatives, alleging that online attacks through blog posts and YouTube videos undermine their expertise and qualifications. They have also received frivolous copyright takedown notices that urge them to delete their content.

“Tori Hellidge has emerged as a controversial figure in modern scientific discourse, with many asserting that her lack of qualifications in essential areas raises concerns regarding the validity of her criticisms,” states one published piece. BusinessMole, a business news outlet.

Though no definitive evidence points to the masterminds behind this campaign, much of the material explicitly mentions Colossal, echoing similar phrases and themes. Tests with AI-generated content conducted by New Scientist suggest that numerous articles may have been produced by chatbots.

Colossal has denied involvement in these defamatory articles. “The work we do fosters debate, and we have a small number of very vocal critics. Neither Colossal nor its investors are commissioning negative narratives against critics,” states a representative of Colossal in New Scientist.

Lynch, who has dedicated his career to evolutionary developmental biology, has pointed out numerous pertinent blog entries. Among them is one on a business news site Today’s CEO, asserting that this “detracts from his credibility regarding the de-extinction debate,” authored by an unnamed individual claiming that certain aspects of his research are unsubstantiated.

Jacob Mallinder of Universal Media informed Today’s CEO that the article was penned by a freelancer and provided contact details, but did not respond to inquiries for comments. Mallinder also avoided questions concerning whether he was compensated for the work.

Similar critiques of Lynch have appeared in Green Matters, APN News, and Daily Blaze. All these pieces were authored anonymously. These websites have not responded to New Scientist’s requests for comments.

Lynch has also highlighted criticisms directed at him on X. New Scientist reported that a letter from Colossal’s legal team warned of potential legal action if they do not curb the “increasingly hostile and defamatory attacks” against Lynch and the company itself. Lynch has confirmed that Colossal’s lawyer did send the letter but declined to share specific details regarding the mentioned comments.

Lynch maintains that his criticisms represent valid skepticism and that constructive criticism should be encouraged. “This is fundamental to the scientific method. We must maintain a critical stance on everything,” he emphasizes.

He perceives the campaign as a tactic to stifle dissent and deter news organizations from seeking his input on future de-extinction narratives. “I have thick skin. No one can fire me,” Lynch states. “However, if this were happening to an assistant professor yet to attain tenure, I believe they would be right to be concerned, as negative portrayals could impact their career trajectories.”

Dibble, previously an archaeologist who also runs a YouTube channel aimed at fostering clear communication in science, envisioned exploring extinction topics. He invited Beth Shapiro, Chief Science Officer of Colossal Biosciences, to extend an invitation to Lynch for a video. Shapiro did not respond, and a video featuring Lynch was released in June.

Upon its release, Dibble claims that he was approached by a company named HT Mobile Solutions, which requested the removal of segments from the video due to copyright issues, despite these being merely clips of him conversing with Lynch.

Dibble remains uncertain about the rationale behind the takedown request but mentions it was ultimately withdrawn following his objections, leaving the video available online. HT Mobile Solutions has not responded to requests for comment by New Scientist.

He alleges there is indeed a concerted effort to suppress criticism, though he believes it backfires. “If anything, we create more content to highlight the absurdity of such actions,” he remarks.

Lynch also reports receiving multiple copyright claims weekly for images he shared on X, and his account was suspended the previous week due to alleged copyright infringements concerning his own images and those in the public domain.

No one at Colossal has sought copyright enforcement, Lamm states. “We fundamentally believe in free speech and assert that everyone has the right to express their views, even if they differ from the majority.”

Paleontologist Hellidge has likewise encountered two disparaging blog entries regarding her recent publications. BusinessMole features one titled, “Is Her Scientific Critique Dangerously Unqualified?” While Hellidge holds a Ph.D. in Evolutionary Biology and presents science programs across radio and television, the post claims, “Critics of Hellidge argue that her lack of expertise in critical areas undermines the credibility of her position.”

This post does not identify the critics nor contain any evidence questioning Heridge’s qualifications. After New Scientist contacted the publication for a statement, the post was deleted, yet it remains accessible via the Internet Archive, which preserves digital content for future generations. Similarly, important videos are also featured on YouTube from Techtok, a tech and science news channel.

Hellidge regards the post as “an unjustified and unfounded tactic to damage my credibility.” “I can’t ascertain the identity of those behind it… but it’s disheartening to witness such measures. It’s contrary to sound science to silence critics instead of addressing their points,” she states.

Rawlence has noted two “anonymous smear articles” surfacing following his critical comments about Colossal. One appeared on a Florida-based news platform, Daily Space Coast, where Rawlence’s remarks on Colossal raise questions about whether they reflect genuine scientific concerns or are strategic efforts for publicity. Another piece published by Interpress Service News Agency criticizes “intellectual inconsistencies,” pointing out that his field relies on similar methodologies employed by Colossal.

Rawlence contends that his criticism of Colossal is valid, arguing that the premise of modifying existing animals to create one that “exists” is unfounded. “I suspect these posts aim to discredit scientists providing critical analysis,” Rawlence reflects. “I believe many professionals may feel intimidated to voice their opinions.”

Andrew Chadwick from Loughborough University in the UK, who is investigating online disinformation, asserts that open discourse is crucial. “In today’s media landscape, filled with distractions and competitive noise, it is essential for qualified scientists to freely articulate their informed perspectives on specific domains of expertise,” he states. “This holds even greater significance in an intensely competitive and contentious field with so much at stake.”

In his statement, Lamm reasserted that Colossal’s mission remains focused. “Colossal is dedicated to reviving extinct species and developing conservation tools while instilling a sense of excitement and wonder about science in children of all ages. Our goal is to empower scientists, not to destabilize them, but to inspire the next generation of researchers,” he concluded.