Did Scientists Really “De-Extinct” Dire Wolves?

Other geneticists and wildlife biologists, however, are questioning the company’s media campaign putting the label “dire wolf” on the animals. “They’ve got really, really smart people doing cutting-edge genetics, but these aren’t dire wolves,” says Jim Heffelfinger, a biologist in Arizona who’s dedicated part of his career to Mexican wolf genetics and recovery near the southern border. “Quit saying they’re dire wolves and taking pictures of them on the Game of Thrones throne—it’s dumb.”

Matt James, the Chief Animal Officer at Colossal, sees things differently. According to James, the transgenic animals are similar enough to extinct dire wolves that, for all intents and purposes, they’re one and the same. That’s based on DNA fragments extracted from a 13,000-year-old tooth found in Iowa and a 72,000-year-old skull fragment found in Idaho. Using the two samples, the Colossal team determined that dire wolves historically were very closely related to modern grey wolves and that the creatures share 99.5% of their genomes.

From there, “we went in and did some genomic analysis and identified key genes that are likely to be the differences between a grey wolf and a dire wolf,” James told MeatEater. “And you don’t need that entire 0.5 percent; you need the key expression areas. We identified 15 gene variants that have been edited into these animals, and the result is the dire wolf.”

The animals are indeed long and lanky, and though young, Colossal expects they could grow to 150 pounds at full size. For reference, female grey wolf adults are about 85 pounds though males can exceed 150 pounds. The tension over whether or not the specimens are actually “dire” wolves boils down to something known as a “species concept”—essentially, how do we define and differentiate species?

“The way Colossal thinks about these things, and the way I think a lot of ecologists think about these things when we lose a species is: what was the ecosystem function that was lost?” James explained. “So if it walks like a dire wolf, acts like a dire wolf, and performs the ecological function and quacks like a dire wolf, is it a dire wolf?”

James says, “yes,” but what that exact ecological function is remains somewhat unclear. The three wolves are confined to the company’s fenced-in 2,000-acre property in an undisclosed location, not to mention that their historical ice-age ecosystem is long gone. So, for now, their ecological function appears to be posing for pictures. You won’t see them roaming in Yellowstone anytime soon, or ever, James says.

Semantics aside, what most parties can agree on is that the new transgenic technologies could have an application in wildlife conservation. When a species nears extinction, its genetic diversity decreases as a function of population size, ultimately making it even more vulnerable to extinction. Transgenics could possibly be used as a means for adding genetic diversity back into a struggling population, helping bring the species back from the brink.

It’s worth noting that bringing back a Pleistocene-era species that went extinct from natural causes isn’t conservation. Many speculate that we are currently living in the midst of the sixth mass extinction on our planet. It’s difficult to pin down an exact number, but scientists estimate that about 500 vertebrate species have gone extinct in the last 100 years.

These animals, driven to extinction by humans, still have functioning ecosystems where they can exist. Species like the passenger pigeon, thylacine, western black rhinoceros, and Pyrenean ibex have all disappeared in the last century, largely due to human impacts. The niche roles they played in their ecosystems are unfiled but still vital. While bringing back an animal like the ivory-billed woodpecker may not excite as many George R. R. Martin fans or make as many headlines, it would be an incredible feat of conservation.

“I’m excited about the prospects of resurrecting extinct species that we know were wiped out by humans,” says MeatEater founder Steven Rinella, who is listed as a member of the Conservation Advisory Board at Colossal. “Especially species for which there’s a public appetite to return the animals to their native range. If producing human curiosity specimens for an amusement park is the quickest and surest path to get there, it’s well worth it.”

Doug Burgum, the Secretary of Interior, weighed in on what that might mean from a policy standpoint, saying, “The only thing we’d like to see go extinct is the need for an endangered species list to exist. We need to continue improving recovery efforts to make that a reality, and the marvel of ‘de-extinction’ technology can help forge a future where populations are never at risk.”

Heffelfinger thinks that might be jumping the gun. He uses the example of the red wolf—an endangered species with a wild population of less than 20 animals remaining in North America. “Some of the biggest problems are they’re getting hit by cars and people are shooting them. Some kind of clone is not going to be impervious to being shot or run over by a car. The conservation issues are real and on the ground; red wolf recovery is not waiting for someone to produce some more red wolves. This is not going to save endangered species just because you’ve got some cool genetic stuff.”

James agrees that conservation efforts need to stay grounded. “De-extinction technologies alone will not solve species extinction, but by marrying it with strong, conventional methodologies, we can accelerate their success.”

As far as what’s next for the “dire” wolves, Colossal plans to breed them at some point and eventually “re-wild” their property. But whatever you choose to call the animals, perhaps the more important takeaway is that new tools are emerging, and along with them will likely come a slew of ethical questions about their usage in wild animal populations.

If you have thoughts on the matter, drop them in the comments section below.

Feature image via Colossal Biosciences.