Generales

By Sergio Alejandro Ruiz Saldarriaga, Journalist at UdeA Communications Office 

In April, the dire wolf (Canis dirus) made a dramatic return to headlines, sparking widespread buzz in the media and online. Colossal Biosciences, a biotechnology company, announced it had revived the extinct species through de-extinction technology. But turning this bold claim into a scientific fact proves far more complex, more reminiscent of Jurassic Park than current reality. 

This content comes from Alma Mater newspaper. » View PDF editions

The IUCN emphasized that Colossal’s animals do not represent genuine dire wolves and fail to meet the criteria for conservation recognition. Photo: Wikimedia / Adaptation: Alejandra Uribe Fernández. 

A predator that once roamed the Earth 10,000 years ago now seems poised for a return. The so-called dire wolf has stirred excitement, but many experts remain skeptical. They argue that projects like this create more confusion than clarity and distract from the core goals of genetic research. 

“It’s not a true dire wolf, but a genetically engineered organism that mimics some of its features,” explained Sergio Solari Torres, coordinator of the Mammalogy Research Group at the Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, Universidad de Antioquia. 

According to Professor Solari, who earned a PhD in Systematic Biology and Evolution, de-extinction doesn’t work like a magic wand that restores animals exactly as they once were. Preferably, it involves reconstructing genetic material from the past and introducing it into existing species. 

To fully understand the genetic process, it’s essential to distinguish between two key concepts. Cloning copies the entire genetic makeup of a cell or organism, as demonstrated by Dolly the sheep. Genetic editing changes specific genes or DNA segments to recreate certain traits, but it doesn’t create an identical organism. 

De-extinction focuses on recreating features of species that have gone extinct. Alejandra Bonilla Sánchez, biologist and professor at the Universidad de Antioquia, agrees with Professor Solari’s assessment of the dire wolf case. She emphasizes that scientists have not yet achieved true de-extinction. “Scientists edited gray wolf cells to resemble a dire wolf, effectively altering their appearance,” she explained. She also noted that these efforts involve modifying only a small number of genes—just a fraction of the approximately 30,000 genes in a complete genome. 

Both experts agree that this case reflects a partial recreation achieved through genetic engineering. It involves editing specific parts of DNA through methods like CRISPR, not cloning or natural reproduction. 

“We can retrieve some genes from an extinct species, but we cannot recover its complete genome or the environment it once inhabited. It fundamentally alters the animal we produce,” Solari added. In reality, science does not bring species back to life; it applies genetic engineering to recreate specific traits. 

Can we bring back a species that no longer has a natural habitat? 

Appearance alone doesn’t define a species. Protecting its habitat, ensuring successful reproduction, and maintaining its role in the food chain are essential for its survival and growth. “A species isn’t just one individual,” Professor Bonilla stressed, highlighting that genetic diversity within populations is crucial for their adaptation, survival, and overall stability. 

A crucial ethical concern revolves around whether scientists should prioritize solving current problems, especially protecting species endangered by habitat loss and climate change, an issue both experts stress. As a result, news about reviving the dire wolf often draws criticism for taking resources away from urgent conservation work. 

Professor Solari warns that de-extinction poses serious risks. Revived species might become invasive or struggle to survive in today’s ecosystems. 

The Canid Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) warned that claiming technology can reverse extinction could lessen the urgency to conserve current species and their habitats.   

The two UdeA professors caution that the belief in “reviving species after extinction” poses risks. They stress that genetics and genomics must support conservation efforts and deepen our understanding of life through responsible technological progress. 

“Genomics requires significant investment in infrastructure, servers, trained staff, and a large volume of samples. While Colombia is moving in the right direction, it still faces substantial challenges,” Bonilla explained. She also highlighted that limited resources make teaching genomics at universities especially difficult. 

Scientists must conduct comprehensive evaluations of the impacts these processes may have. Innovation may inspire enthusiasm, but ethical and scientific standards must guide research. “Species aren’t Lego pieces. You can’t mix eyes from one animal with fur from another and expect the result to function without consequences,” Solari emphasized. 

Beyond the laboratory, communicating science without spectacles 

Media coverage of events like these often generates widespread confusion by glossing over the complexities of research and scientific breakthroughs. It leaves the general public without the necessary tools to accurately judge the benefits, progress, or shortcomings involved. 

“We need to stop doing science solely for our circles,” Bonilla stressed, urging scientists to rethink their role. She highlighted that making this change is necessary to communicate research more clearly and accessibly. This approach also helps counteract the spread of misinformation on social media and sensationalist media. 

Professor Solari expanded on this idea, emphasizing that future scientists must recognize their responsibilities. “Eventually, they’ll face tough choices. If they don’t step up, who else will?” he concluded.