‘Life finds a way’ as science resurrects the dire wolf — and our world is richer for it

New York Post - Apr 7th, 2025

Colossal Biosciences has successfully revived the dire wolf, a species that went extinct over 10,000 years ago, through a process of de-extinction. The Dallas-based company utilized fossil DNA to edit the DNA of grey wolves, creating embryos that were then implanted in surrogate dogs. Three young dire wolves, named Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, now reside in an undisclosed location, showcasing distinct characteristics compared to common grey wolves. This development marks a significant milestone in genetic science, potentially paving the way for the revival of other extinct species like the dodo and wooly mammoth.

The implications of such scientific breakthroughs are vast, sparking debates over the ethical and ecological impacts of de-extinction. While some critics raise concerns about potential psychological and behavioral issues, as well as the ethicality of surrogate birthing, proponents argue that bringing back extinct species can enrich biodiversity and natural wonder. The successful revival of the dire wolf challenges traditional environmentalist views and opens new discussions on the role of technology in conservation. This achievement highlights the balance between scientific ambition and ethical responsibility in modern technological advancements.

Biodiversity Ethics Dire Wolf Colossal Biosciences Genetic Engineering De Extinction Wooly Mammoth

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents an engaging narrative about the potential revival of the dire wolf through de-extinction efforts by Colossal Biosciences. It captures public interest with its intriguing subject matter and accessible writing style, effectively using cultural references to engage readers. However, the story's accuracy is limited by a lack of independent verification and reliance on speculative claims without sufficient scientific evidence.

While the article highlights the potential wonders of de-extinction, it lacks balance by not adequately exploring the ethical and ecological concerns associated with such projects. The absence of diverse and authoritative sources further undermines the credibility of the information presented.

Overall, the article succeeds in sparking interest and discussion about the possibilities of de-extinction, but it would benefit from a more balanced and evidence-based approach to enhance its impact and credibility.

Accuracy

The story claims that Colossal Biosciences has successfully revived the dire wolf, a species extinct for over 10,000 years. However, this claim lacks external scientific validation or independent verification, which is crucial for such a significant scientific achievement. The article mentions the use of DNA from fossils and genetic editing of grey wolves, but does not provide detailed evidence or methodology to support these claims.

The description of the dire wolves' characteristics, such as their "white coat, larger size, more powerful shoulders," etc., is attributed to a reporter from Time magazine, yet no direct citation or evidence from a scientific source is provided. This raises questions about the precision and truthfulness of these descriptions.

Additionally, while the article discusses future de-extinction projects for species like the woolly mammoth, it does not provide concrete evidence or scientific backing for the feasibility of these projects. Overall, the story's accuracy is undermined by a lack of verifiable evidence and reliance on speculative claims.

Balance

The article presents an enthusiastic perspective on the de-extinction efforts of Colossal Biosciences, highlighting the potential wonders and benefits of reviving extinct species. However, it does not equally represent opposing viewpoints or the ethical and ecological concerns associated with such projects.

While the article briefly mentions some criticisms, such as the potential psychological and behavioral deficits of resurrected species, it dismisses these concerns rather than exploring them in depth. The comparison to leaving a Coke bottle on Mars trivializes legitimate ethical and ecological issues, indicating a bias towards the positive aspects of de-extinction.

A more balanced approach would include a more thorough examination of the risks and challenges associated with de-extinction, as well as perspectives from environmentalists, ethicists, and scientists who may have reservations about these projects.

Clarity

The article is written in an engaging and accessible style, with clear language and a logical flow. The use of pop culture references, such as "Game of Thrones" and "Jurassic Park," helps to capture the reader's attention and make the topic more relatable.

However, the tone of the article leans towards sensationalism, which may detract from the seriousness of the scientific and ethical issues involved. While the narrative is entertaining, it could benefit from a more neutral tone that focuses on providing factual information and balanced analysis.

Source quality

The article primarily relies on claims made by Colossal Biosciences, without providing additional sources or evidence to corroborate these claims. The lack of independent scientific sources or peer-reviewed studies diminishes the credibility and reliability of the information presented.

References to a Time magazine reporter's observations are made, but without direct quotes or citations, it is difficult to assess the authority or reliability of these statements. The absence of diverse and authoritative sources limits the article's ability to provide a comprehensive and trustworthy account of the events described.

Transparency

The article does not provide sufficient transparency regarding the sources of its claims or the methodology used by Colossal Biosciences in their de-extinction efforts. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or biases that might affect the reporting.

The basis for the claims about the dire wolves' characteristics and the feasibility of future de-extinction projects is not clearly explained, leaving readers with unanswered questions about the scientific processes involved. Greater transparency about the sources and methods would enhance the article's credibility and allow readers to better assess the validity of the information presented.