I’ve been waiting for this. Ever since researchersalmostbrought a wild goat speciesback from extinctionin 2003, it was only a matter of time until someone came forward and said they had successfully “de-extincted” a species. Now,it has happened.This week, American biotech companyColossal Biosciencesannounced it had resurrected the dire wolf, an animal that went extinct at the end of the last ice age. Colossal released a video that invited viewers to “experience thefirst dire wolf howlsheard in over 10,000 years”.But these are not dire wolf howls, and these are not dire wolves. To make the pups, scientists edited the DNA inside grey wolf cells to make it more dire wolf-like. Twenty changes were made to 14 different genes involved in coat colour, body size and skull shape. Then the cells were used for cloning.The result is that the vast majority of the animals’ DNA is still that of the grey wolf. I’m not the firstto point this out, but this means that what Colossal has actually created is a genetically modified grey wolf.So, why the insistence on calling it a dire wolf?Pop “dire wolf” into a search engine, and the evidence of a PR coup is everywhere. Exhibit A: the exclusive access given to media big hitters, such as Timemagazine and ABC News. Exhibit B: the wolf howl video, which racked up more than a million views in 24 hours. Exhibits C to I: seven more films, all by Colossal, released to time with its announcement. This includes one –more pop video than documentary– that attempts to explain the complicated science of de-extinction to the soundtrack of Thomas Dolby’s She Blinded Me With Science. Oh, the irony.If the idea was to generate interest, or hype, the dire wolf announcement worked, but in the midst of it all, there is a conspicuous absence of peer-reviewed, publicly accessible science. Colossal hasn’t released its methods or analysis of results for scientific or public scrutiny. This isn’t science as most researchers do it. This is a carefully orchestrated PR campaign, by a private company valued atmore than $10bn.Dire wolves are cool. Genetically modified wolves, less so. “We’ve slightly changed the DNA of a wolf,” is less newsworthy than, “we’ve made a dire wolf … you know them, they’ve been in Game of Thrones,and World of Warcraft” (George RR Martin – a Colossal investor and adviser – reportedly met the “dire wolves” and was moved to tears). Colossal knows this and uses it to its advantage.I’veinterviewedresearchers from Colossal Biosciences. Their technology is impressive, but there is what they do, and there is how they share this. When it comes to publicity, Colossal is a master of the art.Only last month, it announced its creation of the mammoth-esque “woolly mouse”. Before that, it has dominated headlines with its plans to de-extinct thethylacine, thedodoand thewoolly mammoth. Oh, and did I mention that it has the financial and PR backing ofChris Hemsworth,Peter Jackson, andTiger Woods? I didn’t, but it has.It is a showboating, clickbaiting approach to science that prioritises media attention over accessible data. If regular science is the quiet kid, calmly eating their dinner, then Colossal Bioscience is the fidgety kid, who wants to show you how many peas he can fit in his mouth.This is science by press release, and it’s a problem. Fragments of data are scattered among glossy PR products, which makes it almost impossible for the rest of the scientific community to interrogate the quality of Colossal’s work.So what’s the point of making a dire wolf that isn’t really a dire wolf?Colossal saysit is because the wolves can improve the diversity and health of their ecosystems.This much would be true, yet the three individuals, Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi, will spend the rest of their lives in their 800-hectare (2,000- acre) reserve. Any plans to release future not-dire wolves into the wild are unclear.A second reason, Colossal says, is because the project is helping to save endangered species. Alongside its “dire wolf” pups, Colossal also announced the birth of four cloned red wolves.Red wolves are a critically endangered species, native to the US. Fewer than 20 wild animals remain, all descended from 14 founder individuals. By carefully choosing the cells that they used for cloning, Colossal has effectively produced three new founders. If the animals are allowed to breed when they are older, this could improve the genetic diversity and resilience of the red wolf population.This is a potentially valuable contribution to conservation science, but it’s a shame that this is being drowned out by the noise created by the dubious dire wolves.In the meantime, the child is being applauded for shovelling peas into their face. Colossal is playing a PR blinder, with the column inches it generates a reward for its hype. “Meh” projects are being spun in a way that is unlikely to be good for the public perception of science. How many people, I wonder, will view these headlines and think that de-extinction is happeningright now? To make informed decisions, people need to be able to discern reality from hyperbole.Colossal says that technology it developed for the dire wolf project helped it to complete the actually important red wolf project. Only, did itreallyneed to make a big, white, muscly, genetically modified wolf in order to make copies of the red wolf? I think not. But I do think it knew how much publicity it would generate.Helen Pilcher is a science writer and the author of Bring Back the King: The New Science of De-Extinction and Life Changing: How Humans are Altering Life on Earth
Have researchers really ‘de-extincted’ the dire wolf? No, but behind the hype was a genuine breakthrough | Helen Pilcher
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Colossal Biosciences Announces Genetically Modified Wolves Amid De-Extinction Claims"
The Guardian
6.1
TruthLens AI Summary
Colossal Biosciences, an American biotech company, recently announced the creation of what it claims to be the first de-extinct dire wolf, an animal that vanished at the end of the last ice age over 10,000 years ago. However, the reality is that the animals produced are not true dire wolves, but rather genetically modified grey wolves with alterations made to their DNA to resemble their extinct ancestors. Specifically, scientists have made twenty changes across fourteen genes that influence traits such as coat color, body size, and skull shape, leading to a misleading representation of the project. While the announcement generated significant media attention, including a video showcasing the supposed howls of the dire wolf, the scientific community has raised concerns regarding the lack of transparency and peer-reviewed data accompanying Colossal's claims. The company's focus appears to be more on publicity rather than scientific rigor, which is evident from their extensive media outreach and the theatrical presentation of their findings, rather than a solid foundation of verifiable science.
In addition to the controversial dire wolf project, Colossal Biosciences has also made strides in conservation efforts, notably through the cloning of endangered red wolves. By carefully selecting cells for cloning, they have effectively produced new genetic founders for this critically endangered species, which could enhance genetic diversity and resilience in the wild population. Despite the potential benefits of this work, the overshadowing hype surrounding the dire wolf project detracts from the genuine advancements being made in species conservation. Critics argue that the sensational portrayal of the dire wolf project may mislead the public about the realities of de-extinction science and conservation efforts. The spectacle around the dire wolf has raised questions about the ethical implications of prioritizing media attention over scientific integrity, leaving many to wonder what the true motivations are behind such high-profile announcements in the realm of biotechnology and conservation science.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The recent announcement by Colossal Biosciences regarding the "de-extinction" of the dire wolf has generated considerable attention, but a closer look reveals a mixture of scientific achievement and marketing exaggeration. While the company has made significant advancements in genetic editing, the end product is more accurately described as a genetically modified grey wolf rather than a true dire wolf.
Scientific Accuracy vs. Public Perception
The article highlights a critical distinction between the scientific reality and the public narrative. Colossal's work involved editing the DNA of grey wolves to mimic certain traits of the extinct dire wolf, yet the majority of the DNA remains that of the grey wolf. This raises questions about the legitimacy of calling the resulting animals dire wolves. The strategic use of terminology plays into a broader trend of sensationalism in science communication, aiming to capture public interest more than to inform accurately.
Media Strategy and Hype Generation
The article points out the company's media blitz, including exclusive access to major news outlets and viral marketing strategies such as a video showcasing the 'howls' of the recreated species. This approach suggests that generating hype is a primary goal, possibly to attract investment or public support for future research endeavors. However, the lack of peer-reviewed scientific data accompanying this claim undermines the credibility of the announcement.
Potential Concealment of Information
The article implies that while the announcement has drawn significant attention, it also obscures the absence of detailed scientific methodologies. By not making their processes transparent, Colossal could be avoiding scrutiny from the scientific community, which could pose risks if the claims do not hold up under peer review. This raises ethical considerations about the responsibility of companies to communicate their findings honestly and transparently.
Manipulative Elements
The language and presentation in the announcement could be perceived as manipulative, aiming to evoke emotional responses rather than a rational understanding of the science involved. The term "de-extincted" carries a heavy weight that could mislead the public regarding the true nature of the research, potentially creating unrealistic expectations about what such genetic advancements can achieve.
Implications for Society and the Future
This event may have far-reaching consequences, including influencing public perception of genetic engineering and conservation efforts. If the public is misled about the capabilities of biotechnology, it could lead to either unwarranted enthusiasm or skepticism regarding future genetic projects. Economically, companies involved in biotech may see fluctuations in interest and investment based on public reception of such announcements.
Target Audience
The announcement appears to cater primarily to tech enthusiasts, conservationists, and the general public intrigued by the idea of resurrecting extinct species. By framing the research in a sensational light, Colossal may be appealing to those who value innovation and scientific advancement, while potentially alienating those who prioritize ethical considerations in genetic research.
Market Impact
In terms of financial implications, biotechnology firms, especially those working on genetic editing and conservation, could see stock price movements influenced by the public and investor reaction to such announcements. If the market perceives this as a groundbreaking advancement, it could bode well for companies in similar sectors.
Global Power Dynamics
While this particular story may not directly alter global power dynamics, it reflects broader trends in biotechnological innovation and ethical considerations that are increasingly relevant in today's geopolitical landscape. The discussion around genetic editing and de-extinction could feed into larger debates about environmental responsibility and technological governance.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
There is a possibility that AI tools were utilized in crafting the narrative or marketing strategies surrounding this announcement. AI could have played a role in analyzing public sentiment or creating engaging content that resonates with the audience. However, it is not explicitly stated in the article, leaving room for speculation about the extent of AI's involvement in shaping this communication. The reliability of this news piece is questionable due to the hype surrounding it and the lack of scientific validation. The emphasis on sensationalism over transparency suggests that while there is genuine scientific progress, the framing may be more focused on marketing than on factual reporting.