Colossal Biosciences’ genetically engineered wolves, named Romulus and Remus, have sparked an intense ethical debate, with scientists questioning whether these modified gray wolves actually constitute “de-extinction” of the dire wolf species that disappeared 12,000 years ago.
Key Takeaways
- Colossal Biosciences claims to have created the “world’s first successfully de-extincted animal” by editing genes in gray wolves.
- Scientists and bioethicists argue these animals are “designer wolves” rather than true dire wolves, comparing the genetic differences to those between humans and chimpanzees.
- Critics worry this technology could create a moral hazard by diverting resources from traditional conservation of the 41,000+ threatened species to flashy de-extinction projects.
- The engineered wolves have no suitable natural habitat or social structure for potential rewilding, raising questions about their long-term purpose and welfare.
- The debate highlights tensions between technological advancement and natural conservation approaches, with disagreement about whether such innovations truly benefit biodiversity.
The Science Behind the “De-Extinction” Claims
Colossal Biosciences made headlines with their announcement of genetically modified gray wolves designed to exhibit traits of the extinct dire wolf. However, the scientific reality is more nuanced than the company’s marketing suggests. The genetic modifications involved editing 20 genes from the gray wolf genome, which contains over 2.4 billion base pairs. Critics point out this represents a minuscule fraction of the actual genetic differences between the two species.
“The grey wolf genome is 2,447,000,000 individual bases (DNA letters) long. Colossal has said that the grey wolf and dire wolf genomes are 99.5% identical, but that is still 12,235,000 individual differences,” said paleontologist Nic Rawlence.
The company’s approach has faced significant scientific scrutiny, with many experts arguing these animals are merely “designer gray wolves” rather than true dire wolves. Stuart Pimm, a conservation biologist, described the creation bluntly as “just a big dog with a few genes inserted from a once extinct wolf,” highlighting the vast scientific difference between genetic modification and actual species resurrection.
Ethical Concerns and Conservation Implications
The conservation community has raised significant ethical questions about this approach to biodiversity. With over 41,000 species currently threatened with extinction according to the IUCN Red List, critics argue that the resources dedicated to de-extinction could be better utilized protecting endangered species that still exist. This concern touches on a fundamental debate about conservation priorities in an age of limited resources and accelerating extinction rates.
“This is about animal engineering; it’s not about resuscitating ancient species. The conversation is not, ‘Do we bring old species back?’ The conversation is, ‘We’re creating new kinds of creatures. We are modifying creatures in new ways. Should we be doing it?’ There’s a lot of science here that’s potentially very interesting, but given how [Colossal has] spun it, we’re not having that conversation,” said evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin.
A particularly troubling aspect involves the fate of these engineered animals. Unlike naturally evolved species, these wolves lack an appropriate ecological niche, social structure, and environment. This raises profound questions about the welfare of creatures engineered primarily for human technological achievement rather than ecological purpose.
U.S.-based biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences claimed to have recreated the appearance of the extinct #DireWolf , which vanished over 10,000 years ago. The male dire wolf pups, Romulus and Remus, are six months old, and the female, Khaleesi, is three months old. pic.twitter.com/Teg9gcSXwZ
— Panda Paws (@Panda_Paws_) April 9, 2025
Defenders and Future Implications
Defenders of Colossal’s work, including CEO Ben Lamm and Chief Science Officer Beth Shapiro, argue their technology could ultimately benefit conservation broadly. The company has also cloned critically endangered red wolves, suggesting potential applications for preserving currently threatened species. Shapiro has acknowledged the taxonomic debate, stating, “If it looks like a dire wolf and it acts like a dire wolf, I’m gonna call it a dire wolf.”
The controversy extends beyond scientific circles to policy realms. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s praise for Colossal’s innovation while criticizing the endangered species list sparked additional controversy about the U.S. government’s conservation priorities. The company plans to keep Romulus and Remus in controlled environments with no immediate rewilding plans, while simultaneously pursuing other de-extinction projects including woolly mammoths and thylacines.
This scientific and ethical debate ultimately reflects deeper questions about humanity’s relationship with nature and technology. As genetic engineering capabilities advance, society faces increasingly complex decisions about when and how to intervene in evolutionary processes that have traditionally operated beyond human control.
