A new “de-extinction” effort is being praised by some as a scientific marvel. Others say it’s a dangerous effort to control nature. And still others are skeptical of the experiment’s legitimacy.
But not all news outlets shared the skepticism, and some were a bit too credulous.
The Texas-based “de-extinction” company Colossal Biosciences says it has re-created dire wolves, which last lived around 13,000 years ago. TIME Magazine (Lean Left bias) broke the story on April 7, and it went viral almost immediately.
Why? The company believes “that the same techniques it uses to summon back species from the dead could prevent existing but endangered animals from slipping into extinction themselves,” according to TIME.
“We are an evolutionary force at this point,” said Colossal’s chief science officer Beth Shapiro, referring to humanity as a whole. “We are deciding what the future of these species will be.”
“Yes, bring back the woolly mammoth,” wrote Rich Lowry (Right bias) of Colossal’s “heroic” effort. “Why not?”
In addition to the sheer marvel of the experiment, there is also “conservation potential in the gene-editing techniques used by the Colossal team,” according to Scientific American (Lean Left). The company is also working to bring back red wolves, which were declared extinct in the wild in 1980.
Other reactions weren’t as positive. They came from a range of voices, from skeptical scientists to those who are skeptical of scientists.
“Romulus and Remus (and their sister Khaleesi) have only had edits to 14 genes to make them different from gray wolves, while actual dire wolves had way more than that,” wrote neuroscientist Erik Hoel (not rated) in his Substack newsletter. “The latest evidence shows they were the last of an Old World canid lineage that couldn’t interbreed with other wolves at all. These likely can. So how far is this from putting the skin of a dire wolf on a normal gray wolf and parading it around?”
“All you can do now is make something look superficially like something else,” according to Vincent Lynch, a University at Buffalo biologist quoted by Associated Press (Left bias).
“The dire wolf experiment is probably going to backfire in ways that cannot be foreseen in the immediate moment,” wrote The Daily Caller’s (Right bias) editor-at-large John Loftus. “Just like researchers playing around with viruses in Wuhan. You never know what sorts of complications might arise from introducing a new species, let alone if/when these genetic technologies are ever seriously applied to human beings.”
Some headlines proclaimed Colossal’s effort as a successful de-extinction. “This is Romulus. He is a dire wolf. The first to exist in 10,000 years” read TIME’s cover. Other news sources blindly followed suit in their framing.
But it’s not exactly true. Colossal’s wolves share over a dozen key traits with the extinct dire wolves, but even the company notes that “no ancient dire wolf DNA was actually spliced into the gray wolf’s genome.” So calling them “dire wolves” is a stretch — at best, they’re cousins.
As this and other “de-extinction” efforts continue – next on Colossal’s list are the woolly mammoth, dodo birds, and other species – they’re bound to come up in casual conversation. Understanding peoples’ moral, ethical, or scientific objections will ensure you don’t ruffle any bioengineered feathers (or in this case, fur).
Henry A. Brechter is the Editor-in-chief of AllSides. He has a Center bias.
Reviewed by:
Malayna J. Bizier, News Analyst and Social Media Editor (Right bias)
Evan Wagner, Product Manager (Lean Left)