Dire Wolves and Designer DNA: De-Extinction or Reinvention?
Image credits: Philippe Montes | Unsplash
Earlier this month, Colossal Biosciences made headlines with the bold claim that they had successfully resurrected the dire wolf, an iconic predator that went extinct more than 10,000 years ago. Three pups—Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi—were born from domestic dog surrogates, created using CRISPR-based gene editing and other advanced techniques. Public reactions have ranged from awe to skepticism; so have the reactions from the scientific community.
But the core question remains: have people truly brought back a lost species—or is this something else entirely?
Let’s unpack this advance—biologically, philosophically, and bio-inspirationally.
What Colossal Actually Did
After figuring out the ACTG code of the dire wolf genome (“sequencing” this ancient genome from remains tens of thousands of years old, in itself an achievement), Colossal took gray wolf cells and introduced 20 specific gene edits across 14 genes. These edits were chosen to emulate dire wolf traits like larger body size, broader skulls, and darker fur. These edited cells were inserted into dog eggs that had been emptied of dog DNA, and the resulting embryos were implanted into domestic dogs for gestation. The three pups were born healthy and are being studied in a captive environment.
This workflow is an impressive feat of synthetic biology, blending cell reprogramming, cloning, and developmental biology. But the genetic foundation remains overwhelmingly gray wolf, not dire wolf.
And that’s where things get complicated.
How Many Genes Make a Species?
Image credits: Braňo | Unsplash
There’s no simple threshold for how many genetic differences define a species. Evolution doesn’t work in neat numbers. Instead, when thinking about what makes a species a species, scientists look at:
💡 Genetic divergence over time (how many DNA differences are there between organisms?),
💡 Reproductive isolation (can two animals produce fertile offspring?), and
💡Functional differences in behavior, physiology, and ecology.
Even small genetic changes can lead to huge biological differences. Humans and chimpanzees are about 97-99% similar at the DNA level (calculating this is complicated)—but this 1-3% genetic difference translates to tens of millions of DNA differences!
What about dire wolves and gray wolves? They also diverged millions of years ago and have over 12 million base pair differences. Despite superficial resemblances, they’re not close relatives in the sense that they’re somehow biologically interchangeable.
So while these pups may resemble dire wolves in select traits, if we only consider the issue from the perspective of DNA, Remus, Romulus, and Khaleesi are not truly de-extincted ancient dire wolves.
If you’re already interested in de-extinction efforts, you might remember the case of the Pyrenean Ibex, which went extinct in 2000. Scientists took frozen samples from the last Pyrenean ibex, cloned the DNA into goat eggs, and inserted them into goat surrogates. In 2003 a single ibex was born from the process. Sadly, it died just 10 minutes after birth due to a lung defect. There was no controversy around whether this was a true de-extinction attempt. It was, because there was no gene editing or other genetic manipulation carried out.
The Surrogate Problem
A major challenge in de-extinction is surrogacy—both in terms of the egg and the womb. By definition, no mother animals exist to gestate the de-extincted embryo. Since no dire wolves existed at the beginning of the project, Colossal had to use dog eggs (with their DNA removed) and dog surrogate mothers to grow the embryos. While dogs and wolves are close enough to be reproductively compatible in some ways, differences still exist in gestational environment, immune responses, and cellular signaling. How did these differences impact the growth of the embryos before birth? Uncertain.
Recreating a species isn't just about having the right genes—it's about supporting those genes through the entire biological lifecycle, from conception to behavior to social structure. This wasn’t a point of major contention in the previous case of the Pyrenean ibex, but in the dire wolf case, people are taking a closer look at the biology involved.
Does It Matter If This Isn’t True De-Extinction?
Image credits: Sigmund | Unsplash
What’s the bottom line here? Does it matter whether these pups are “real” dire wolves?
Yes, it matters.
Biologically, calling this "de-extinction" sets a precedent that may blur the lines between conservation and invention. Philosophically, it raises questions of authenticity—are we reviving nature, or building something new in its image? If these animals are marketed as “dire wolves” but lack the full genome, social behavior, and ecological niche, is the public being misled? What does it mean to be a “real” species, anyway? There’s also an ethical concern: Are we creating creatures with no natural habitat or place in the wild, destined for captivity and nothing else?
But also, maybe it doesn’t.
Other de-extinction projects may call on ecological restoration as a motivation for pursuing the research. If engineered “dire wolves” can one day fill similar ecological roles—or serve as a springboard for deeper ecological understanding—they could offer real value. (On the other hand, previous wolf restoration projects have been complicated.) If we think about evolution as a story of creativity and improvisation, reimagining extinct species through synthetic biology is less about perfect replication and more about inspired continuation. The question becomes: What future do we want these technologies (and the living things we create with them) to help build?
The Bio-inspired Takeaway
Image credits: Sangharsh Lohakare | Unsplash
Whether or not Colossal has truly resurrected the dire wolf, their work marks a new chapter in how we think about the interface between biology, extinction, and engineering. It invites us to confront big questions, like:
💡 What makes a species real? (What does “real” even mean here?)
💡 In what ways does engineered life hold ecological and emotional meaning?
💡Are we restoring the past—or reimagining the future?
In that sense, these pups are more than a scientific milestone. They’re a cultural mirror, reflecting our hopes, fears, and creativity as we rewrite the boundaries of life. This breakthrough probably tells us more about ourselves than it tells us about biotech.
Your Turn!
What lost species would you want to bring back—and why?
What traits or ecological roles do you think matter most? Send me a message and let me know.
About Tiffany
Dr. Tiffany Vora speaks, writes, and advises on how to harness technology to build the best possible future(s). She is an expert in biotech, health, & innovation.
For a full list of topics and collaboration opportunities, visit Tiffany’s Work Together webpage.
Get bio-inspiration and future-focused insights straight to your inbox by subscribing to her newsletter, Be Voracious. And be sure to follow Tiffany on LinkedIn, Instagram, Youtube, and X for conversations on building a better future.
Buy Tiffany a Cup of Coffee | Image credits: Irene Kredenets via Unsplash.
Donate = Impact
If this article sparked curiosity, inspired reflection, or made you smile, consider buying Tiffany a cup of coffee!
Your support will:
Spread your positive impact around the world
Empower Tiffany to protect time for impact-focused projects
Support her travel for pro bono events with students & nonprofits
Purchase carbon offsets for her travel
Create a legacy of sustainability with like-minded changemakers!
Join Tiffany on her mission by contributing through her Buy Me a Coffee page.