Who is afraid of the big, bad (dire) wolf?
Photos courtesy of Colossal Biosciences
Advancing science may make it possible to bring back extinct species like the dire wolfâbut should it? ¶¶ÒőÂĂĐĐÉä Boulder environmental studies and philosophy Professor Ben Hale says the answer is complicated
Earlier this year, Colossal Laboratories & Biosciences made headlines when it announced thatâthrough the science of genetic manipulationâit had successfully re-created three dire wolves, a large wolf species that ranged across North America and South America some 10,000 years ago before going extinct. Some news outlets, including Time magazine, called the development species âde-extinctionâ while others touted it as âscientifically seismic.â
Subsequently, other scientists challenged Colossalâs assertions of having de-extincted the species, arguing that these wolvesâRomulus, Remus and Khaleesiâdid not meet theÌę of dire wolves. Thatâs because Colossal did not create the animals from a fully reconstructed dire wolf genome but instead relied on a gray wolfâs genetic material and made changes to it with ancient DNA recovered from dire wolf specimens.
Meanwhile, Colossal has announced plans to bring back a variety of other extinct species, including the wooly mammoth, the Tasmanian tiger () and most recentlyÌę a giant flightless bird that stood about 12 feet tall and weighed about 500 pounds.
However, seemingly lost amid the claims and counterclaims of whether scientists can bring back dire wolvesâor any other extinct animalsâfrom extinction is the deeper philosophical and ethical issue: should they?

As a University of Colorado Boulder philosophy professor in the Department of Environmental Studies, Ben Haleâs primary research focus is on environmental ethics and policy. He has followed the news reports about bringing back dire wolves and other long-gone animals through the lens of ethical issues associated with the extinction and de-extinction of species.
For his part,ÌęBen Hale has no easy answers. A University of Colorado Boulder philosophy professor in theÌęDepartment of Environmental Studies, Haleâs primary research focus is on environmental ethics and policy. He has followed the news reports about bringing back dire wolves and other long-gone animals through the lens of ethical issues associated with the extinction and de-extinction of species.
Recently, Hale spoke with Colorado Arts and Sciences Magazine regarding his thoughts on when it makes sense to attempt to de-extinct a species (and when it doesnât); what it means to de-extinct a species, ethically speaking; how ethicists in the larger scientific community are responding to the latest scientific breakthroughs; and his thoughts on the ethical implications of de-extincting a T-Rex. His responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity and condensed for space.
Ìę
Question: Setting aside the issue of whether Colossal actually created dire wolves, or just something similar, why would we want to bring back an extinct species of wolf?
Hale: Thatâs the question, right? For some (scientists and entrepreneurs), I think thereâs the relatively straightforward scientific challenge of seeing if it can be doneâto de-extinct a species. The dire wolf happens to be a particularly charismatic species in no small part because itâs a large mammal that has some resemblance to a dog. Popular fantasy shows like Game of Thrones elevated the ecologically real dire wolf species even further, to a kind of magical status, so thereâs an element of fantasy and science fiction that makes the dire wolf intriguing.
Still, that doesnât speak to the kind of public-facing rationale offered by Colossal Biosciences or other folks who are engaged in de-extinction efforts. Letâs call them âde-extinction optimists.â Itâs not enough, generally speaking, just to say, âWe wanted to see if we could do it,â or âWe did it because we think the species is beautiful or cool.â Using that as a justification starts to look a lot like Jurassic Park, right? And Michael Crichton and Stephen Spielberg and numerous others have warned us about technology unchained with these cautionary tales.

Hale says he believes part of the appeal of de-extincting dire wolves is because they resemble a dog and that popular TV shows such as Game of Thrones have elevated the status of real dire wolves to an almost magical level.Ìę
So, the public-facing justification that de-extinction optimists will offer is that we âowe it to the species,â possibly because weâve made that species extinct by something weâve doneâsay, human-caused extinctionâor because extinct animals can serve as important elements or components of the ecological system, given that some ecosystems are not healthy. You can make the case that we can revive those ecosystems by reintroducing apex predators that were playing a valuable regulatory function.
Question: If you bring back a creature from extinction, but the natural habitat for it no longer exists, how much have you accomplished?
Hale: I think this a question that looms large over the matter of de-extinction, particularly in an era of accelerated climate change. It may be the case that we can bring back a species that is genetically similar to a past species, but we may not have done anything to make that species function within the ecosystem. Is it in that case true that weâve brought back the species? Does it even make sense to speak of a species outside of its ecological context?
One of the stated reasons for de-extincting a species is to revive or rejuvenate deteriorating or degraded ecosystems. If you think the environment has been degraded to such an extent that it needs to have some kind of apex predator that was roaming the earth 10,000 years ago, like the dire wolf, reintroduced into the ecosystem, then itâs not clear what it means even to say that the species has been brought back. Itâs not back at all. Itâs just isolated somewhere. Keeping it as a specimen in Colossal Biosciences laboratories (as the company has done) doesnât actually de-extinct the species, in my opinion.
Now, you could say that genetic replication is just the first step in a proof-of-concept de-extinction effort, and the next step is to create enough of the species that scientists can develop a viable population and then release them into the wild. Then perhaps thatâs the ultimate step to de-extinction.
ButÌęif your criterion is that whatever species is brought back derives its status from its function in the system, then itâs a mistake for them to suggest that they have de-extincted the speciesâbecause they havenât yet done that.
Question: Generally speaking, how do ethicists within the scientific community think about the idea of de-extincting species? And what is your position on this subject?
Hale: I would argue that most environmental ethicists, as well as most animal ethicistsâthese are two different communities of ethicists who agree on some things but disagree on many othersâare extremely skeptical of these efforts to de-extinct species. I think youâre going to be hard pressed among the ethics community to find people who are excited about the potential of theseÌęde-extinction technologies.
Personally, I tend to be more of aÌęmoderate regarding technologies such as these. My viewâunlike some of my other colleagues at other universitiesâis that developing technologies like this can help us to address ecological issuesÌęin the near term, but that this gets much more complicated as we reach back in history.
With extinction, an animal can either go functionally extinct or ontologically extinct, which are two different things. For instance, theÌęoysters in the Chesapeake Bay are often said to be functionally extinct. There are still oysters living in the Chesapeake Bay, but theyâre not serving the function that they were once serving, which was the cleaning and purification of the bay.
In that context, it would be a much more meaningful outcome for us to revive or to de-extinct oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, say, than to de-extinct the dire wolf. Oysters are important for us, and they were vitally important to many communities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I think we should use technologies to de-extinct functionally extinctorganisms and species.
So, itâs a balance. We donât want to drop the ball on the de-extinction discussion inasmuch as its an important tool for ecologists, but we also donât want to introduce Jurassic Park-style scenarios where we fetishize a charismatic species simply because it is genetically related to something that we like. Also, as we get deeper into time and deeper into history, I think it becomes more ridiculous and more problematic, ethically speaking, for us to try to de-extinct a species.
Question: So, bringing back oysters to Chesapeake Bay could fulfill a useful ecological role, but ethically itâs harder to make the case for bringing back a Tyrannosaurus Rex?
Hale: Is the de-extinction of a T-Rex the best use of our resources? My answer to that question is probably not.
Again, Iâm generally supportive of researchÌęinto a variety of different technologies that help us better understand how nature works and what we can do to address concerns in our natural environment. And it may well be that some of these gene-splicing technologies do precisely that.

Dire wolves Romulus and Remus, along with their sister, Khaleesi, will spend their entire lives in an animal refuge. Hale says there are ethical questions as to whether a species is really made de-extinct if itâs natural habitat no longer exists.
I believe itâs important for us as a society to have robust technologies, maybe even de-extinction ones in cases ofcatastrophe or calamityâmuch like seed banks or insurance policiesâbut we certainly should have security in place in case things go sideways.
Question: Are there any governmental regulations at the international level, or at the national level, governing this kind of scientific work? If not, do you think there should be?
Hale: This is not an area that I tend to work in, but Iâm not aware of any regulations. Personally, I do think that this kind of private sector, entrepreneurial research should be regulated.
What would it mean to regulate more pure scientific research is an interesting question. I think it would mean that you would have some kind of external scrutiny of scientific operations in an open framework that would prevent opportunists from developing a technology that could be either weaponized, which would be unusual in this context, or that would prevent ecological recklessness, as in the case of an accidental or intentional release. Given the potential ecological, environmental, and economic impacts of release, we should be very careful about allowing self-replicating but misfit entities, like a de-extincted species, into the wild. The potential for misuse here is tremendous.
I think there probably are other reasons to regulate it as well. You might be concerned about the harm or suffering that you might cause to any given specimen of that species. For example, if youâre creating a huge laboratory of failed experiments with de-extinct speciesâsay, a bunch of failed versions that die prematurely or live out their short lives in painâI think that should also have some oversight.
Question: So, potentially in the pursuit of a scientific good, scientists could, possibly inadvertently, cause harm to the animals?
Hale: This was an issue with the cloning controversy, whenÌę was cloned. Anytime youâre experimenting with technologies of this sort, youâre going to create some mutants or some mistakes during trial runsâand there were quite a few of those when Dolly was cloned. Some of the animals had short lives or they were born with mutations and whatnot.
This is one of the key worries for animal ethicists: that the animal will be born with defects that will cause it to suffer, or maybe that itâs destined to spend its entire life in captivity being poked and prodded. âŠ
There are a range of different reasons why animal ethicists think that we should be concerned about the well-being of animals. Some of them include their capacity to experience pain and suffering, and some of them are more abstract, likethatÌęthey have rights. So, depending upon which sort of camp you fall in in the animal ethics literature, you may object to de-extincting individual entities for different reasons than environmental ethicists, but two sets of concernsâabout the ecology and about the individuals themselvesâsort of work in tandem with one another.
Question: Do you think there is a risk that, if scientists show they can successfully bring back extinct species, some people will come to believe that conservation efforts are no longer necessary?
Hale: I thinkÌęwe should be thinking hard about the problem of extinction. The reason Iâm interested in de-extinction is not just because I think itâs cool, but because I think it provides a good reason for us to try to prevent extinction in the first place. Thatâs my real objective in exploring the question of de-extinction.
âItâs not enough, generally speaking, just to say, âWe wanted to see if we could do it,â or âWe did it (de-extincted a species) because we think the species is beautiful or cool.â Using that as a justification starts to look a lot like Jurassic Park, right?â
Ben Hale, ¶¶ÒőÂĂĐĐÉä Boulder philosophy professor in the Department of Environmental Studies
I think we have good reasons to try to prevent extinction and that de-extinction alone is not going to be a solution to the problem of extinction. Potentially, it just introduces more problems. So, we should try where we can to prevent the extinction of animals or the extinction of a species.
In fact, in a lot of my work I discuss different kinds of reversal scenarios, from air pollution to geoengineering to remediation. Thinking about repair and restoration helps us see better that many of our most basic intuitions regarding environmental wrongdoing arenât, strictly speaking, about the harm that weâre doing to the environment. For instance, those who think that a company can pollute a river, say, and then right their wrong by cleaning up the pollution using remediation technologies, have a pretty limited sense of what an environmental wrong is. Environmental wrongs also happen in part because people are trespassed upon, their rights are violated, or there are other offenses to them and the world. Those kinds of cases are not properly related to de-extinction, but all of them are an effort to try toÌęrepair past harms or restore lost value, just as de-extinction is an effort to return something that is lost.
In many casesâmaybe even in most casesâI think we should essentially operateÌęunder the assumption that interventions like de-extinctions are cases of lastÌęresort. And this goes for many different kinds of environmental interventions like the ones I mention above: We need to try to avoidÌęcircumstances in which we need to take drastic action to repairÌęthings that weâve done that are damaging or wrong.
Question: Do you expect that, moving forward, companies like Colossal Biosciences will continue to pursue efforts to bring back extinct species?
Hale: I do. Again, Iâd like to see scientists and governments deal with this globally, to set up some kind ofÌęcommission to create some kind of oversight or monitoring that nudges private companies away from technologies that could be used recklessly, such that they threaten existing ecosystems. This is part of the reason that I thinkÌęwe should be cautious about de-extinction intervention overall. We just donât know what the downstream impacts of our actions are going to be.
Did you enjoy this article?ÌęÌęPassionate about environmental studies?ÌęShow your support.