These Aren't the Wolves You're Looking For
Kory stared down at the red-furred dog behind the glass. “That’s not a dire wolf,” he grunted.
“Of course it is!” The CEO laughed, setting a friendly hand on Kory’s shoulder and took a long swig of his wine in the other. “See the fur? The eyes? That’s a real killer canine, right there.”
Kory wiped the man’s hand off his shoulder. “Don’t insult my intelligence. You’ve altered a handful of genes inside a husky to change the color of its fur.”
“Well, real wolves died out half a century ago. Give us credit; we did the best we could with what we have. But think! We can bring back not only the wolves, but the dire ones too! We’re practically gods!”
The husky nudged at the glass towards Kory “And are you going to ever release this ‘dire wolf’ into the wild? The wild, I might add, that is currently being cut down and burned as we speak?”
“No, of course not. That wolf is worth more than even I am. Can’t just release all that money into the wild, now can we?”
Kory narrowed his eyes. “So then why should I praise you for making a glorified, living collectable?”
While I was in the depth of “writing my thesis” purgatory in spring 2025, a company called Colossal Bioscience hit headlines by claiming they’d brought back the dire wolf. The online science communication community collectively rolled their eyes. I had every intention of creating a post about it during the height of its infamy, but alas, I had to survive and graduate from my program. When I finally got to diving into the controversies of this company’s claim, I got roped into a deep dive that I was not prepared for. Hence the belated timing on this post.
My original vision of this post was for it to be an educational post detailing how CRISPR and gene editing works but instead, as I dove deeper and deeper into this rabbit hole, it morphed into an exploration on how scientific papers work and how harmful turning scientific research into spectacle can be. So unfortunately, CRISPR and gene editing will come next year.
In fact, this became more investigative journalism than I was expecting. I’m certainly not covering new ground—most scientists with more skin in the game have pointed out many of the issues I’m about to discuss—but the issues presented in this case study are so important that we need to discuss them in this age of misinformation.
For a truly deep dive into Colossal Bioscience and the idea behind “de-extinction,” I recommend listening to the podcast “Behind the Bastards.” Here’s part 1 and part 2. They have almost 2.5 hours of content covering the background of Colossal Bioscience, de-evolution, and concerning the “dire wolves.”
These Are Not Dire Wolves
Ah yes. Time to address the tactical use of quotation marks in the above section.
I highly recommend you read this article where the journalists actually did their job and spoke to an expert in the field. Dr. Kayce Bell and Dr. Emily Lindsey did fantastic work explaining what you’d actually see in dire wolves if they were alive.
Firstly, they wouldn’t be white, they’d be dark red or brown. And they would sound much different than modern wolves due to the bones in their throats. And their teeth were designed to chomp through bones. Again, I highly encourage you to read the article linked; it’s fascinating!
In short: the company has genetically dressed up wolves to look like the public’s fantastical perception of ancient dire wolves.
Which leads me to my second point: They only edited a handful of genes. 20 genes, to be specific. The company claims they’ve taken and replaced said genes with “exact extinct variants.” To their credit, editing 20 genes is impressive! Altering genes in mice is hard and tedious, and I can only imagine how long this editing process took. But 20 genes do not make a species. A species is defined by not only their gene pool, but also their behaviors, their place in the ecosystem (called a “niche”), their
And more importantly, what genes did they actually change?
Don’t worry, we’ll never find out (see “Missing Data?” section)
What The Heck is BioRxiv?
BioRxiv, pronounced “Bio Archive,” is a pre-print site where scientists can post their research papers prior to sending the papers to a journal. Scientists have also used it to publish data that they believe would benefit their field prior to the certified peer review process. You can read more about it here.
I did manage to find the company’s scientific article on BioRxiv. The paper is titled, “On the ancestry and evolution of the extinct dire wolf.” I have made the necessary sacrifice and read the paper. It’s a gene mapping paper, which translate to “figure out what genes are in a species and where are they on the string of DNA your cells contain.” What the company is trying to do is reconstruct the dire wolf genome (collection of DNA) through multiple mapping techniques.
Ultimately, I’m unimpressed.
Now, that may be because I’m not experienced in this specific field of science, so the significance of the paper’s data on the scientific field may be lost on me there, but this major paper that the news hyped up so much is just a mapping paper. That’s it.
If it had been only sold to me as a gene mapping discovery, however, then I would be very impressed. It’s clear this research took a colossal amount of work (pun intended). But this is the equivalent of someone telling you that the car you’re going to purchase can travel back in time, only for you to get into the front seat and find that it has fantastic handling and really, really nice, heated seats. And while I love heated seats, it’s not time travel. The car is not a DeLorean.
Another major aspect of BioRxiv that’s relevant to the discussion: papers on here are not peer-reviewed. This paper is not peer-reviewed, meaning it hasn’t been scrutinized by experts in the field.
Goodness, there’s so many red flags, one must wonder if I’m following the trail of a color guard.
In defense of BioRxiv, the paper isn’t meant to be peer-reviewed, that’s the point of having a preprint. Submitting your work to BioRxiv allows the paper to be seen by more eyes, which means you can have more input on how your paper can improve. It’s also free, which means that you can have experts look at your writing and data for no cost before you pay the massive fee to send your work to a journal. From there, the journal will send feedback, but it’s still a sizable chunk of change that can be devastating to lose if your paper still needs work.
BioRxiv isn’t perfect (I have many gripes with it), but it’s still a fantastic source for scientists.
It is not, however, a place that I’d ever post data that wasn’t peer reviewed to provide myself the excuse of, “IT’S PUBLISHED!” and then rush to tell news networks.
Side Tangent About the Paper’s Authorship
Here’s a fun fact about science papers that many may not realize: the order of authors on a paper tells you who did the most work (or it should, but that’s getting into lab politics). I’ve heard tales of scientists destroying relationships over authorship orders. It’s a huge deal. The lab head, or the P.I. is the last name in the authors to signify that they lead the lab, but everyone else is in order of importance.
I’m one of the most chill scientists you’ll ever meet when it comes to authorship. I don’t care. I know that being first author is good for my resumé, as it indicates that I did the most work (like on my thesis paper), but other than that, if you want to be second author and put me as 4th, 5th, 6th on a paper I helped on, I don’t care. Take that spot. You’ve earned it.
Therefore, you know you’ve done something horribly wrong when I’m upset about authorship.
This paper has the fantasy author George R. R. Martin on it.
I can guarantee you that George R. R. Martin did none of the work on this paper. He wouldn’t even be a consultant; his “dire wolves” from his fantasy story are as inaccurate as you can get… Which is fine for a fantasy story, but that doesn’t make him an expert on dire wolves in any way.
This is a publicity stunt, and it enrages me. GRRM has NO BUSINESS being on this paper. You don’t tag someone on there for sh-ts and giggles.
(I look at the bottom of the paper for Conflicts of Interest, which is the longest I’ve personally seen in a paper.)
Oh look. GRRM is an investor in Colossal Biosciences. Shocker.
Missing Data?
Supposedly, the data concerning the genetically altered wolves are in the supplemental figures, specifically supplemental tables 11-13. Now, I had every intention of digging through this data and seeing what my immunology brain could understand, but that’s not possible because…
Well, currently the data doesn’t exist. At all.
Their paper claims this data, and all of their other supplements, are in the Zendo Repository under their paper’s DOI. I’ve spent an embarrassing amount of time trying to find this data, or any hint of their paper in this DOI, but currently, I can’t find it. IN the comments available under the original paper, there’s a comment from 2 months ago asking where the heck is the data in the repository.
I’ve also added a comment confirming that the data still is inaccessible.
Friends… That’s sketchy A.F.
So Much Flawed Logic, It Hurts
In this NPR article, the company claimed that “it was not trying to create an exact genetic replica of the dire wolf, but rather produce animals that can fill the void that dire wolves left in nature and carry the animal characteristics that were lost when they went extinct.”
That.
Doesn’t.
Make.
Sense.
The experts in this field have already said this, but these wolves can’t do any of what the company claims. Firstly, those wolves are EXPENSIVE. None of these genetically modified wolves are going to be released into the wild. Secondly, what niche are they filling that isn’t already been filled by present-day wolves? Thirdly, if dire wolves went extinct naturally in the past because they couldn’t handle the change in environment, that means the ecosystem has already moved on and evolved past the need for dire wolves. De-Extinction sounds cool to tech bros, but the real resources should be focused on preserving the animals presently in those niches that are being threatened by human activity like hunting or deforestation.
Also, if you’re not trying to make an exact genetic replica of dire wolves, then why are you calling them “dire wolves”?
Let’s dive a bit deeper into the actual genetic differences between dire wolves and gray wolves. They are 99.5% genetically similar, which means 0.5% differs between them. How many genes is that? Well, a gray wolf has 2,447,000,000 bases in their gene according. Some of them are in non-coding regions, but this is a back-of-the-envelope calculation, so we’ll let it slide. If we take 0.5% of that, we’re left with 12,235,000 bases that are different between the two species. I’m going to take a quick estimate and say that 3,000 bases make up a gene on average. That leaves us with about 4,078 genes that differ between a dire wolf and a gray wolf.
That sure as heck ain’t 20 genes.
Even if we’re generous and said, “oh, only 20% of those are actually in coding regions,” that’s still about an 800 gene difference.
So while 20 genes is impressive in terms of technique, it’s miniscule on the genetic scale. They are effectively spending millions of dollars to make slightly different gray wolves, who already have their niche in the ecosystem.
Side note: As I’m adding articles to this post, I found an article that also did the same kind of calculation. 1) I wish I had seen this beforehand so I could save myself from hunting down how many base pairs were in a dire wolf’s genome, and 2) I can’t believe we actually got the same numbers, and it makes me so happy to be confident in my thinking!
My Real Gripe and the Real Harm
I think my usual audience can tell that my tone is… more “aggressive” than usual.
I’m not upset about the science Biological Colossal did, nor the paper they published. As far as I can tell, the actual data is solid.
My problem is the asinine publicity stunt pulled by the company.
My problem is how major news corporations didn’t bother to fact check the company’s claims. But we had to get the sensationalized headline out for the clicks, didn’t we? So much for journalistic integrity.
My problem is how the current Trump administration and those loyal to him are eager to use this idea of “de-evolution” to remove protection from endangered species. Now, I wish I could find a solid article from NPR about this, but the news actually broke over Twitter through tweets. This article and this article go into a bit more detail (though I prefer the former article as it’s tone reflects much of what I feel about this situation). They are eager to disassemble the crucial foundations we need to protect the current species here and now.
We don’t get a do over. We can’t live in a fantasy were we just “bring back” species whenever we want, because that’s not how conservation works. Life cannot be treated like some video game where you get to bring back a save-game file.
Takeaways
Say you do want to have this happen in your scifi story, where they bring back an extinct animal. That’s 100% okay! That’s the power of fiction; to explore concepts that real life doesn’t allow for. As long as we understand that this plot point belongs in science fiction and to not get dragged into the fantasy in real life, I say have at thee.
But if you wish to tackle “de-evolution” with a more realistic take on the subject, I urge you to discuss and explore the actual issues surrounding this “solution.” Maybe your characters are fighting to save an endangered species from a cooperation is bent on destroying/harvesting it or destroying its habitat because “[the corporation] can just make more of the creature if they die off” (or is that too on the nose?). Actually, I think I just got a mini campaign idea folks… Rushes off to write that down.
I honestly wanted there to be more nuance in this discussion, I really do, but the so-called hype surrounding this research has put a sour taste in my mouth that I wish I could rinse out. I know this is a blog meant to explore how to put science into fantasy, but I found myself wanting to rip people in the real world out of this fantasy and shake them till they woke up.
Final sidenote: I realized that, due to when it’s coming out, this post is essentially my Holiday post. I think I may have failed a wee bit on making this a “merry and bright” post.
So on that note… er, happy holidays? I’ll see you in 2026 with much more hopeful news and posts! (And with an updated Jekyll coding situation, which will allow me to put images back into my post again!) If you want to keep up with more of my scicomm adventures beyond the blog, check out or sign up for my newsletter here!