They gave the puppies the names Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi—names taken from both ancient myth and contemporary legend—possibly to highlight how this tale also straddled the boundaries of science and narrative. However, the response was anything but mythological when Dallas-based biotech business Colossal Biosciences revealed its genetically modified dire wolf substitutes in the spring of 2025. It was deemed reckless by scientists. It was deemed premature by ethicists. However, for a little instant, it seemed like the start of something completely else.
Colossal altered about 20 genes in gray wolf DNA using CRISPR to replicate characteristics of the extinct Aenocyon dirus, which went extinct about 10,000 years ago. The outcome was three fluffy white puppies that strikingly resembled what dire wolves may have looked like if they had survived the Ice Age. However, several experts were quick to point out that just because you look the part, it doesn’t mean you are the real thing.
The reaction was swift and frequently harsh as soon as the announcement was made. It was hailed by some as an especially creative application of contemporary instruments to mend long-standing ecological scars. Some, including well-known biologists and philosophers, expressed concern over what they perceived to be a misrepresentation of biological history. Critics questioned the motivation as well as the science. Was this a conservation measure or a show to attract investors?
Simple Table (for WordPress)
| Detail | Description |
|---|---|
| Topic | Genetically engineered revival of the extinct dire wolf sparks global ethical debate |
| Key Event | Colossal Biosciences announced the birth of three pups modified to resemble the extinct dire wolf |
| Technology Used | CRISPR gene editing on gray wolf DNA, with 14–20 genetic modifications |
| Names of Pups | Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi |
| Criticism | Accused of being “designer dogs” rather than authentic de-extinct species |
| Ethical Concerns | Animal welfare, ecological disruption, conservation priorities, scientific credibility |
| Supporters Argue | Ecological restoration and moral responsibility for human-driven extinctions |
| Notable Source | ABC News Coverage |
The joyous mood was dampened by an admission made by Beth Shapiro, the lead scientist at Colossal and one of the leading authorities on ancient DNA studies worldwide. She asserted that it is impossible to revive something that is exactly like a once-living creature. Skeptics were strengthened rather than silenced by that degree of candor. Many people thought the endeavor was a branding effort disguised in scientific terms.
But there was no denying the public’s curiosity. Videos of the puppies went viral within hours of the announcement. The company’s valuation surpassed $10 billion as a result of the infusion of capital from investors ranging from crypto pioneers to Hollywood celebrities. Listeners were also invited to hear “the first dire wolf howls in over 10,000 years” via a YouTube link. Depending on one’s stance on the issue, it was either moving or manipulative.
As I watched the video, I wondered if I was experiencing more awe or uneasiness.
Proponents of animal welfare swiftly came forward. The question was not only whether we could produce such animals, but also if we ought to. These puppies cannot learn how to hunt, behave, or live in packs from any surviving dire wolf. They wouldn’t know where to turn if their instincts were inherited. Additionally, even with the changes, their bodies might not fit the lives they would be expected to pursue.
Examples from the past, such as the 2003 cloned bucardo that survived for only a few minutes after birth, serve as warnings. Although genetic editing has the potential to be extremely accurate, it can also be biologically unpredictable. Now, the dire wolf cubs reside at a secret location on a safe 2,000-acre wildlife preserve. That was dubbed “responsible containment” by others. A scientific curiosity in a high-budget cage, according to some.
The ecological questions followed. Is it possible to introduce these hybrids into any environment without risk? Most likely not. They have lost their prey. They no longer have predators. Thousands of years of climatic change and human growth have significantly changed their environment, which is now nonexistent. For current ecosystems, releasing them could have unforeseen and potentially irreversible effects.
“If you bring back something that has been dead for 10,000 years, you need to bring back its environment too,” said renowned bioethicist Professor Arthur Caplan. If not, he cautioned, the outcome would be displacement rather than renewal.
The red wolf, a severely endangered animal that is currently having difficulty surviving in the Southeast United States, was cited by several biologists. Wouldn’t it have been possible to save actual wolves with the resources that were utilized to create symbolic ones? In a parallel endeavor, Colossal responded by cloning four red wolves. However, that felt more like a side note than a tactic to many.
In interviews, Colossal’s founder, Ben Lamm, was blatantly audacious. With a combination of charm and strategic disdain, he dismissed questions about ethical concerns and scientific integrity. He remarked, “Who gives a shit if a child is more concerned about biodiversity because they saw a Colossal Mammoth?” That statement, which was frequently cited and discussed, brought attention to the conflict between marketing and mission.
Lamm deserves praise for his efforts to change the way conservation is carried out. He contends that the models that are currently in use are too intellectual, too cautious, and too slow. He thinks he can create urgency by applying showmanship to science. He already has, in a sense. On forums that rarely see scientific trends, people are discussing extinction in novel ways.
The fundamental conflict persists. Colossal has accomplished amazing technological feats. It is far less clear, though, if it is morally or environmentally sound. Even though Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi are genetically modified dogs rather than actual dire wolves, their presence makes us raise unavoidable questions.
What does it mean to “bring back” a species? Do these creatures represent advancement or are they a show masquerading as such? Those questions won’t remain theoretical as synthetic biology gains strength. They will shape the next phase of our understanding of nature, accountability, and the thin boundary between reinvention and restoration.
