The Colossal's De-extinction Promise: A Dubious Legacy
Colossal Biosciences' ambitious project to de-extinct extinct species has generated significant excitement and investment, but the scientific community remains skeptical about its true intentions. The company's claims of reviving the dire wolf and other extinct animals have been met with criticism from experts, who argue that the genetic modifications are not substantial enough to bring back a truly extinct species.
The dire wolf, which was declared extinct at the end of the last ice age, was revived through a process called gene editing. However, according to a group of leading canid experts, the dire wolves created by Colossal were only grey wolves with 20 edited genes, not a separate, fully functioning species. This has led some scientists to question the company's definition of "de-extinction."
Nic Rawlence, director of the palaeogenetics laboratory at the University of Otago in New Zealand, who is working on reviving the moa, believes that extinction is forever and that attempting to bring back extinct species is a futile endeavor. He argues that Colossal's approach is "genetically engineered poor copies" that are being passed off as the real thing.
The company's CEO, Ben Lamm, has been accused of spreading misinformation and undermining trust in science by attacking critics. However, Lamm maintains that his company's work can change the way the sector works and that de-extinction technology could be a useful conservation tool for living species.
Despite the controversy surrounding Colossal, some scientists acknowledge the potential benefits of gene editing in saving species caught in genetic bottlenecks. The company is working on reintroducing lost genes from museum specimens to critically endangered populations, such as the red wolf in North America.
In conclusion, while Colossal's de-extinction promise has generated significant excitement and investment, the scientific community remains skeptical about its true intentions and the extent of its success. The debate highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of what is possible with gene editing and the limitations of de-extinction technology.
The future of conservation will likely depend on the ability to harness gene editing technology in conjunction with traditional conservation efforts. As Lamm himself acknowledges, "If a kid wants to save animals, that's wonderful." However, critics argue that this should not come at the cost of undermining trust in science and perpetuating unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved through de-extinction.
Ultimately, the legacy of Colossal Biosciences will depend on its ability to deliver results that are grounded in scientific reality. As the company continues to push forward with its ambitious plans, it is essential to have a critical and nuanced discussion about the potential benefits and limitations of gene editing technology in conservation efforts.
Colossal Biosciences' ambitious project to de-extinct extinct species has generated significant excitement and investment, but the scientific community remains skeptical about its true intentions. The company's claims of reviving the dire wolf and other extinct animals have been met with criticism from experts, who argue that the genetic modifications are not substantial enough to bring back a truly extinct species.
The dire wolf, which was declared extinct at the end of the last ice age, was revived through a process called gene editing. However, according to a group of leading canid experts, the dire wolves created by Colossal were only grey wolves with 20 edited genes, not a separate, fully functioning species. This has led some scientists to question the company's definition of "de-extinction."
Nic Rawlence, director of the palaeogenetics laboratory at the University of Otago in New Zealand, who is working on reviving the moa, believes that extinction is forever and that attempting to bring back extinct species is a futile endeavor. He argues that Colossal's approach is "genetically engineered poor copies" that are being passed off as the real thing.
The company's CEO, Ben Lamm, has been accused of spreading misinformation and undermining trust in science by attacking critics. However, Lamm maintains that his company's work can change the way the sector works and that de-extinction technology could be a useful conservation tool for living species.
Despite the controversy surrounding Colossal, some scientists acknowledge the potential benefits of gene editing in saving species caught in genetic bottlenecks. The company is working on reintroducing lost genes from museum specimens to critically endangered populations, such as the red wolf in North America.
In conclusion, while Colossal's de-extinction promise has generated significant excitement and investment, the scientific community remains skeptical about its true intentions and the extent of its success. The debate highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of what is possible with gene editing and the limitations of de-extinction technology.
The future of conservation will likely depend on the ability to harness gene editing technology in conjunction with traditional conservation efforts. As Lamm himself acknowledges, "If a kid wants to save animals, that's wonderful." However, critics argue that this should not come at the cost of undermining trust in science and perpetuating unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved through de-extinction.
Ultimately, the legacy of Colossal Biosciences will depend on its ability to deliver results that are grounded in scientific reality. As the company continues to push forward with its ambitious plans, it is essential to have a critical and nuanced discussion about the potential benefits and limitations of gene editing technology in conservation efforts.
. On one hand, I think it's super cool that Colossal is working on bringing back extinct species using gene editing 
. It's like science fiction come to life! And if they can actually make it work, it could be a game-changer for conservation efforts 
.
It's like they're playing with fire 
and risking undermining trust in science if their claims aren't backed up by solid evidence.
, 'cause he seems like a nice guy who just wants to make a difference. But yeah, attacking critics isn't the way to do it 
. Maybe they should focus on building a strong team of experts and listening to their concerns instead? 
. The whole dire wolf thing just sounds like a publicity stunt to me 
, especially with that 20 edited genes business 
. I mean, what even is the point of bringing back an animal if it's not even a "true" species? 
Their claim that dire wolves were just grey wolves with 20 edited genes is kinda fishy. And what's up with the CEO attacking critics? That's not how you build trust, dude. 
But let's not get ahead of ourselves and start thinking we can just bring back the past. The extinction debate is super complex and we need more nuanced understanding of what's possible with gene editing.
they'll be disappointed when it doesn't work out. We gotta have a critical conversation about de-extinction and its limitations, not just hype it up as some magic solution.
But we need to be realistic about what it can and can't do. If Colossal's approach is basically just creating poor copies of extinct species, then what's the point? It feels like they're more interested in getting attention and funding than actually doing real science.
We need to have a critical discussion about what gene editing can really do and when it's not worth pursuing. Just because we want to save animals doesn't mean we should compromise on science itself.
i mean dont get me wrong im all for saving our planet and all but come on theyre just editing 20 genes into grey wolves lol its not even close to being the dire wolf 
and ben lamm is literally trying to spin this as science when really hes just trying to get attention and $$$ 
gotta ask what's the point if we can't even get it right? 20 edited genes for dire wolf ain't de-extinction. just a shadow of something that already exists...
. Until then, let's keep having this nuanced conversation about what gene editing can (and can't) do for conservation 
.
. On one hand, I think it's awesome that the company is trying to push the boundaries of gene editing tech and make conservation efforts more effective 
.
. If they're only able to edit 20 genes into grey wolves and call it a day, then what does that really mean for the dire wolf's revival? 
. Overall, I'm cautiously optimistic about Colossal's efforts, but I think they need to take a step back and re-evaluate their goals and methods 
... I mean, if they're just messing around with 20 edited genes, how can that really bring back a species? It's like trying to copy-paste a cat's fur onto a dog and expecting it to be the same 
... I don't think Colossal is being super transparent about their methods, either 
... still, it's interesting that they're working on reintroducing lost genes into endangered populations – that could be a game-changer for conservation 
... but let's keep an eye on the science behind it, you know?
.
. It's all about finding a balance between innovation and science-based decision-making.
. I mean, sure, it's cool to imagine being able to bring back extinct animals like dire wolves or moas, but let's not forget that science is tricky and rarely perfect. Like with Colossal Biosciences' efforts - they're using gene editing to try and bring back extinct species, but experts are saying the results aren't exactly what people expect 
. I mean, let's not forget that Colossal's CEO is basically getting roasted for attacking critics... like, what's up with that?