‘The dire wolf isn’t back’: A Colossal failure or the cutting-edge of conservation? Maybe both

Screenshot 2026-01-06 at 2.21.04 PM

When Colossal unveiled its interpretation of the dire wolf in April, the news made international headlines. Enthusiastic profiles in Time magazine and the New Yorker declared “the dire wolf is back”.


But the announcements have been met by far less excitement among scientists. Shortly after the dire wolf announcement, and to much less fanfare, a group of the world’s leading experts on canids concluded that the company had not really resurrected the species.

Rather, they had made 20 edits to the DNA of grey wolves, and the resulting animals did not substantially differ from those that now roamed North America …

“Colossal’s attempts are genetically engineered poor copies at best, passed off as the real deal,” [said Nic Rawlence, director of the palaeogenetics laboratory at the University of Otago].

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Even Colossal’s harshest critics recognise the potential of gene editing to save species caught in genetic bottlenecks. Many wildlife populations have become dangerously inbred as their numbers dwindle, and Colossal is working to reintroduce genetic diversity back into populations, such as the critically endangered red wolf in North America, by reintroducing lost genes from museum specimens.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
Picture1
The FDA couldn’t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-12.15.17-PM
UK gene-editing milestone: Livestock barley that increases ruminant value and reduces methane emissions is first-approved CRISPR crop
vax-misinformation-main
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Limit free speech to blunt social media misinfo?
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-3.15.53-PM
Chiropractors may no longer be modern-day snake oil salesmen, but the benefits of their therapy are limited–at best
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-11_27_01-AM-2
AI likely to improve health care, research shows—but not for blacks and ethnic minorities
Screenshot-2026-05-20-at-5.11.17-PM
Viewpoint: No, sugar doesn’t ‘feed’ cancer — common cancer myths, debunked

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.