Plate Nº 85 · recorded November 12, 2026
Biology & EvolutionReported finding
De-extinction Is a Mirage, Scientists Argue in New Paper
A Biology Letters opinion paper argues gene editing can rebuild traits but not extinct lineages, citing Colossal's 20-edit dire wolf clones as the key case.
By Nathan Brooks3 min read567 words
In brief
- Andrew Davinack and Charlotte K. Daniels published their opinion paper in Biology Letters in 2026 (DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2026.0315).
- Colossal Biosciences made 20 edits across 14 genes of living gray wolves to produce its 'dire wolf' animals.
- The authors say the resulting animals are genetically engineered gray wolves, not resurrected dire wolves.
- Cloning from preserved cells or frozen embryos could preserve a direct biological link, unlike gene editing.
- The same technologies could instead restore genetic diversity in living species and reduce inbreeding harm.
Twenty gene edits across 14 genes — that's what separates Colossal Biosciences' famous "dire wolves" from the gray wolves they came from, according to two biologists who argue the headline-grabbing animals are not a resurrection at all.
In an opinion paper published in the journal Biology Letters in 2026, Andrew Davinack and Charlotte K. Daniels of Wheaton College in Massachusetts make a blunt claim: genetic engineering cannot truly reverse extinction. Their case in point is Colossal's Dire Wolf Project, which the biotechnology company presented as having brought an extinct predator back to life.
That's not what happened, the researchers say. Colossal started with cells from living gray wolves — distant relatives of dire wolves — and modified them at those 20 spots across 14 genes. The company then used the edited cells to produce cloned animals carrying some characteristics associated with the extinct predators.
What did Colossal actually create?
By the authors' reading, the results are genetically engineered gray wolves, full stop. Recreating some of an extinct animal's traits doesn't restore its evolutionary history. It also can't recover the genetic diversity that once stretched across an entire wild population — the natural variation that lets a species survive disease, climate shifts and other pressures.
"Such organisms may have scientific or conservation value as analogs or ecological proxies, but they are not continuations of extinct lineages," Davinack and Daniels wrote in their piece, titled "Reconstructing traits, not restoring lineages: the biological limits of de-extinction" (DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2026.0315).
Their second argument goes beyond DNA. Even a perfect genetic replica wouldn't be a true comeback, because scientists can't rebuild the environment in which the original species evolved. That environment includes its relationships with other animals and the ecological conditions that shaped it over millennia. An organism without that context is, in effect, a stranger in a world that no longer exists for it.
Are all de-extinction attempts equal?
No — and the researchers are careful not to lump everything together. "These approaches should not be treated as conceptually equivalent," they wrote.
Cloning from preserved cells or frozen embryos of an extinct species is a different matter, they acknowledge. Unlike gene editing, that kind of material could preserve a direct biological link to the original species. A clone grown from an actual dire wolf cell would carry a genuine physical connection to the extinct lineage; an edited gray wolf would not.
The paper was published on November 11, 2026, in Biology Letters, a peer-reviewed Royal Society journal, as an opinion piece — meaning it presents the authors' argument rather than new experimental data.
Where could the technology actually help?
Rather than chasing species that have already vanished, Davinack and Daniels see a more practical use for the same toolkit: protecting the species still here.
The technologies being developed for de-extinction, they argue, could help conservationists restore lost genetic diversity in living populations. That matters because small, isolated populations lose variation with every generation, and inbreeding increasingly harms animals like cheetahs and some island foxes. Gene-editing approaches could potentially buffer those effects — keeping endangered animals alive rather than resurrecting extinct ones.
The bottom line from the Wheaton team: woolly mammoths, dodos and saber-toothed cats aren't coming back in any true sense. But the science behind the hype might still do real good for animals that haven't disappeared yet.
via phys.org/rss-feed/ (Source)
More from Nathan Brooks
Show full bio
Market editor covering companies, deals and strategy in general science news at SciBeat.
325 articles
Nearby plates
- Those Weren't Dire Wolves, Scientists Say — Just Edited Grey Wolves
- Ancient DNA reveals extinct yak relative hidden in Siberian bones
- 194-Year-Old Tortoise Reveals Stable Gene Switches That May Resist Aging
- Tracking a 100-million-year-old genome duplication in salmonids
- First global genome atlas maps hidden microbial life in 362 lakes