{"id":18499,"date":"2025-04-14T06:09:13","date_gmt":"2025-04-14T06:09:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/18499\/"},"modified":"2025-04-14T06:09:13","modified_gmt":"2025-04-14T06:09:13","slug":"scientists-warn-dire-wolf-could-bring-unintended-consequences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/18499\/","title":{"rendered":"Scientists Warn Dire Wolf Could Bring ‘Unintended Consequences’"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tEarlier this week, Colossal Biosciences claimed that they\u2019d brought the dire wolf back from extinction<\/a> after some 12,000 years. They debuted photos of five-month-old Romulus and Remus, two fluffy, snow-white wolves that the company claims represent their first successful effort in \u201cde-extincion.\u201d The wolves, with longer, thicker, lighter-colored coats than gray wolves and a larger stature and stronger jaw, also have a younger \u201csister,\u201d Khaleesi, from a different genetic line. The brothers are around 80 pounds and still growing.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe public reaction was swift and varied. Fantasy fans bitterly joked that they were seeing actual dire wolves \u2014 which featured prominently in HBO\u2019s Game of Thrones<\/a> series \u2014 before the long-awaited release of George R.R. Martin<\/a>\u2019s next novel in the Song of Ice and Fire series. Some of us wanted to hug the pups, while nervous Jurassic Park references abounded. A large portion of the public discourse coalesced around one specific technicality, however: Had Colossal, by making 20 edits to 14 genes in the gray wolf genome to bring it closer to the dire wolf\u2019s genome (which they\u2019d recently sequenced in full), actually made dire wolves? Or were Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi \u201cdesigner gray wolves,\u201d \u201can approximation of the direwolf,\u201d and \u201ctransgenic gray wolves with dire wolf parts,\u201d rather than the actual thing?\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tColossal saw this criticism coming, and chief science<\/a> officer Beth Shapiro maintains that their goal to create healthy animals trumped any desire of achieving an exact replica. Further, she told Rolling Stone, a species is really just a construct, a helpful label for describing animals with similar attributes. \u201cMy colleagues in the field of taxonomy are going to be like, \u2018It\u2019s not a dire wolf,\u2019\u201d Shapiro previously told Rolling Stone. \u201cAnd that\u2019s fine, but to me, if it looks like a dire wolf and it acts like a dire wolf, I\u2019m gonna call it a dire wolf.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tThe scientists who spoke with Rolling Stone since the announcement side with the critics on the taxonomy question. At the same time, however, they all agreed there are more important issues to discuss regarding Colossal\u2019s technology, including the promise of major breakthroughs in conservation efforts and serious concerns about ethics and the unintended consequences of creating new animals.<\/p>\n

\t\tEditor\u2019s picks<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThis is about animal engineering; it\u2019s not about resuscitating ancient species,\u201d says evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin, a professor at the University of Chicago. \u201cThe conversation is not, \u2018Do we bring old species back?\u2019 The conversation is, \u2018We\u2019re creating new kinds of creatures. We are modifying creatures in new ways. Should we be doing it?\u2019 There\u2019s a lot of science here that\u2019s potentially very interesting, but given how [Colossal has] spun it, we\u2019re not having that conversation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tShubin says the dire wolf project highlights concerns about introducing genetically engineered animals to the world. \u201cWill they be able to breed? How are they going to behave? Are they going to be successful?\u201d he says. \u201cThere\u2019s so much we don\u2019t know. When you start introducing things into existing ecosystems, you\u2019re in the law of unintended consequences. Sometimes you can\u2019t predict what happens in these complex systems when you start to tweak them.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tWhen Julie Meachen, who co-authored a 2021 paper<\/a> on dire wolves with Shapiro, heard Colossal had created a dire wolf, her excitement gave way to trepidation. \u201cThere was part of me that was like, this is pretty darn cool that you were able to put some dire wolf into a wolf, and but then part of me was like, \u2018Hoo boy,\u2019\u201d she says.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tMeachen is a de-extinction skeptic when it comes to the unknowns of introducing a species to a new ecosystem. \u201cMaybe we can make these animals again, and that\u2019s cool, but what are we gonna do with them?\u201d she says. \u201cWhere are we gonna put them? When [dire wolves] went extinct at the end of the last Ice Age, the entire ecosystem went extinct: insects, plants, animals.\u201d<\/p>\n

\t\tRelated Content<\/p>\n

\n\tThese environmental elements shaped the animals who lived among them, on a biological level.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cYou need its ecosystem,\u201d says Nic Rawlence, director of the Palaeogenetics Laboratory at the University of Otago in New Zealand, referring to the idea of bringing back ancient species. \u201cWe know now that parasites and gut microflora are really important for health. So are these animals going to have the appropriate parasites?\u201d Amid news that has drawn repeated comparisons to a 30-year-old sci-fi book and film franchise,\u00a0Rawlence points to another legitimate concern raised by Michael Crichton on de-extinction. \u201cIn Jurassic Park, the triceratops gets sick eating plants that hadn\u2019t evolved when it lived tens of millions of years ago,\u201d he says. (It\u2019s true: according to ScreenRant<\/a>, the cause of illness gets glossed over in the movie, but in the book, Crichton explains that the dinosaur \u2014 a stegosaurus in print \u2014 mistakes poison berries for the small rocks it would typically eat to help it digest its food.)<\/p>\n

\n\tFurthermore, there\u2019s the issue of how the species will interact with humans, Earth\u2019s apex predator of the moment. Dire wolves did overlap with early humans at the end of the Ice Age, around 11,500 years ago, but humans had barely invented agriculture at that point, let alone begun building the cities and interstate highways that would encroach upon the natural world.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tWolves, in particular, already have a rough track record with humans. In recent decades, conservationists have been working to navigate the reintroduction of gray wolves onto lands in the western United States where\u00a0settlers had culled them to near-extinction, while many ranchers maintain an uneasy stance towards the endangered wolves, because they sometimes prey on their livestock. \u201cPeople already have a fraught relationship with big carnivores,\u201d Meachen says. \u201cIf we introduce even bigger carnivores, it would make everything worse.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tFor now, Colossal is keeping their wolves in an expansive, 2,000-acre, fenced-in compound and carefully controlling their diet and breeding. They have no plans, they say, to truly rewild the dire wolves, although they speak broadly of goals to partner with indigenous people to release them onto indigenous lands. \u201cThese early generations will be monitored for health and behavior as we learn how they adapt to their habitats and their habitats adapt to them,\u201d Shapiro says. \u201cI think it is important that we focus on the intended consequences when we prepare for a future with rewilded ecosystems, whether that means de-extinct species or genetically rescued endangered species. Restoring ecological interactions makes ecosystems more robust and more resilient, with cascading benefits to every species in the community.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe longerm captivity of engineered animals \u2014 whether they are considered new or formerly extinct \u2014 raises other questions. Meachen says she has mixed feelings about relegating species like the dire wolf to zoos or parks. \u201cOn one hand, it would provide children with wonder and could spur future generations to want to work in science and conservation,\u201d she says. \u201cBut there are ethical questions about de-extinction: are we just creating these animals for our own pleasure? And is that OK?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cSometimes you can\u2019t predict what happens in these complex systems when you start to tweak them.\u201d<\/p>\n

Biologist Neil Shubin<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n\tColossal is working toward one day rewilding other currently extinct species, however, including the woolly mammoth and the thylacine, a marsupial also known as the tasmanian tiger. In these cases, Colossal says they\u2019re evaluating risks and developing conservation assessments. \u201cThese plans involve looking at all aspects of the species extinction, their historic habitat, range, and climate, and details we know about the animal\u2019s ecology and social biology,\u201d chief animal officer Matt James says. \u201cWe are creating plans to find areas in today\u2019s world where the animals can successfully thrive and then we begin working with conservationists to prepare those habitats and address potential drivers of extinction such as invasive species, societal behaviors and attitudes, and degraded habitat.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tMost of the scientists who spoke with RS said they were excited about Colossal\u2019s advancements in genetic engineering. Their technology is already being used to boost endangered red wolf populations and to make the endangered Australian quoll<\/a> resistant to the venom of the cane toad, an introduced species that has become part of the quoll\u2019s diet \u2014 and its downfall. \u201cColossal is applying technology in ways that haven\u2019t been done before,\u201d Meachen says. \u201cWe have genetically modified plants to have traits that make them more drought-resistant or make a bigger fruit. We haven\u2019t done much with wild animals yet.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tOther sources say Colossal\u2019s funding \u2014 they benefit from celebrity investors from Tom Brady to Game of Thrones author Martin himself\u00a0 \u2014 could be put to more immediate use. \u201cIt\u2019s hard to get conservation funding,\u201d Rawlence says. \u201cI think saying you\u2019re going to go use all this money to de-extinct things is a bit disingenuous, especially around how you actually define de-extinction.\u201d He\u2019s eager to see what the science can do for species that are still here. \u201cBy all means, develop the technology,\u201d he says. \u201cBut use it to conserve and save what we\u2019ve got left.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tAhead of Monday\u2019s announcement, Colossal CEO Ben Lamm spoke excitedly with Rolling Stone about briefing Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum on the dire wolf news and the bipartisan enthusiasm he\u2019d encountered for Colossal\u2019s goal of enhancing biodiversity. \u201cI think everyone understands that if we overfish the oceans, there\u2019s less fish,\u201d he said at the time. \u201cIf we cut down the rainforest, there\u2019s less habitat for those animals. People are receptive to that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tOn Monday, Burgum reacted to the news, but not in a way embraced by scientists. In an X post <\/a>praising Colossal\u2019s efforts, Burgum heralded the value of \u201cinnovation \u2014 not regulation.\u201d He also decried the endangered species list \u2014 a roster of threatened species as defined by the Endangered Species Act and maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which falls under his Department of the Interior \u2014 as a place where species go, but 97 percent have never left. He blamed the length of those species\u2019 endangerment on an over-emphasis on regulation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tColossal claims Burgum\u2019s sentiment has been taken in the wrong context. Asked to comment on the X post, Colossal replied with a quote attributed to chief animal officer James, who bottle-fed the dire wolves as babies. \u201cI think Secretary Burgum\u2019s quote has been unfortunately politicized, and the spirit of his message has been lost,\u201d he said. \u201cIn our meetings with the secretary, my takeaway has been that he sees immense value in the use of innovation and technology in the recovery of endangered species.\u201d James went on to note that \u201conly three percent of listed species have ever been recovered to the point where they could be removed from the endangered species list,\u201d end expressed optimism that Colossal\u2019s tools, \u201cin conjunction with conventional conservation,\u201d can be used to help speed the recovery of species facing extinction, thereby getting them removed from the federal list.<\/p>\n

\n\tBurgum\u2019s recent social media post aside, the \u201cspirit\u201d of the Trump administration\u2019s woeful conservation policies has concerned anyone who cares about the survival of our planet. As Republicans work to roll back wildlife protections, hobble the federal departments that maintain our national parks and other public lands with mass layoffs, and open more land to drilling, mining, and development, experts say we are careening ever more quickly toward irreversible environmental crisis.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\t\tTrending Stories<\/p>\n

\n\tMeachen was alarmed by Burgum\u2019s post. \u201cI worried that that was how some people would see this: now that we have this tech we don\u2019t have to worry about endangered species lists any more,\u201d she says. \u201cI think that\u2019s the absolute wrong way to be looking at it. [This technology is] not to replace species but to augment the protections we already have in place.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Earlier this week, Colossal Biosciences claimed that they\u2019d brought the dire wolf back from extinction after some 12,000…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":18500,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3847],"tags":[4311,12302,70,16,15,1717],"class_list":{"0":"post-18499","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-wildlife","8":"tag-game-of-thrones","9":"tag-george-r-r-martin","10":"tag-science","11":"tag-uk","12":"tag-united-kingdom","13":"tag-wildlife"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114334830626871145","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18499","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18499\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/18500"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}