'De-extinction' is misleading and dangerous, ecologist says

A biotech company in the United States made headlines last month by revealing photos of genetically modified gray wolves, calling them "dire wolves," a species that hasn't existed for more than 10,000 years. Colossal Biosciences edited 14 genes among millions of base pairs in gray wolf DNA to arrive at the pups that were shown, leaving millions of genetic differences between these wolves and real dire wolves.

This hasn't stopped some observers from asserting to the public that "de-extinction" is real. But it's not, says podcast guest Dieter Hochuli, a professor at the Integrative Ecology Lab at the University of Sydney.

Hochuli explains why ecologists like him say de-extinction isn't just a misleading term, but a dangerous one that promotes false hope and perverse incentives at the expense of existing conservation efforts that are proven to work.

"The problem with the word de-extinction for many ecologists is that we see extinction [as] being an irreversible event that has finality about it, a bit like death. The idea that you can reverse those sorts of things is anathema, I think, biologically, but also philosophically and ethically," Hochuli says.

Subscribe to or follow the Mongabay Newscast wherever you listen to podcasts, from Apple to Spotify, and you can also listen to all episodes here on the Mongabay website.

Image Credit: Thylacines, female and male in the National Zoo Washington D.C.

Mike DiGirolamo is a host & associate producer for Mongabay based in Sydney. He co-hosts and edits the Mongabay Newscast. Find him on LinkedIn and Bluesky.

------

Time codes

(00:00) They aren't dire wolves

(03:57) Why extinction is final

(04:50) Ecological barriers to 'de-extinction'

(12:25) Problems with species reintroduction

(20:25) How 'de-extinction' can mislead

(25:32) Is conservation a zero-sum game?

(31:58) Can this technology truly aid conservation?

(39:24) Is the marketing hype justified?