Subscribe
“The world’s definition of de-extinction is flawed,” screams the dedicated section opener on the website of Colossal Biosciences Inc. The announcement by the US company that it had achieved “revival” of a species last seen 13,000 years ago engendered a furious debate, with some doubting the scientific accuracy of the claim.
What exactly is de-extinction? The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) problematises the concept. “The term ‘de-extinction’ is misleading in its implication that extinct species, species for which no viable members remain, can be resurrected in their genetic, behavioural and physiological entirety... ‘De-extinction’ is therefore here used in a limited sense to apply to any attempt to create some proxy of an extinct species or subspecies,” states IUCN’s “Guiding Principles on Creating Proxies of Extinct”, released in 2016.
Colossal Biosciences provides its own definition of “functional de-extinction” on its website: “The process of generating an organism that both resembles and is genetically similar to an extinct species by resurrecting its lost lineage of core genes; engineering natural resistances; and enhancing adaptability that will allow it to thrive in today’s environment of climate change, dwindling resources, disease and human interference.” The definition does not say what are “core genes” or how “enhancing adaptability” would still ensure replica of the target “de-extinct” species.
Scientists have questioned Colossal Biosciences’ claim. The company may have built some ancient genes into wolves and produced an “enhanced” gray wolf, with some genes of the dire wolves, Ronald Goderie, director of Grazelands Rewilding, a Netherlands-based foundation, tells Down To Earth (DTE). “But that is something else as claiming to have restored the dire wolf,” he says.
Even Colossal Biosciences seems to have backed down from their claim…
This article was originally published as part of the cover story Origin of Proxies in the May 1-15, 2025 print edition of Down To Earth