Dire Wolves and the Dilemma of De-extinction 

By Mia Constantinescu

In our rush to resurrect the past, are we overlooking the urgent need of our present? 

Isn’t it quite dystopian, and a bit reminiscent of Jurassic Park, to bring back an extinct animal? Jeff Goldblum’s character in the first film of the franchise (1993), cynically states ‘Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should’. When news broke of scientists allegedly bringing back the dire wolf, an animal that has been extinct for over 10,000 years, this quote was precisely the first thing that came to my mind.  

Did they really bring an animal back from extinction though?  

The answer is not black and white, not a clear cut yes or no, but rather a ‘not really’.  

Dire wolves (Aenocyon dirus)  existed during the Pleistocene Epoch (2.6 million years to 11,700 years ago) and differed from the common grey wolf (Canis lupus)  in numerous ways – particularly in size, estimated to be 15% heavier [1] with bigger skulls and teeth, and most notably a larger temporalis muscle [2] (responsible for biting and chewing [3]) capable of exerting much more force than that present in the grey wolf.  

Interestingly, while Colossal Biosciences (the company responsible for allegedly ‘de-extincting’  the dire wolf) claims dire wolves and grey wolves are ‘genetically really similar’ [4], modern science actually seems to think that dire wolves, although morphologically (physically) similar to grey wolves, split in evolutionary lineage around 5.6 million years ago. Dire wolves belong to a completely different taxonomic lineage known as ‘Aenocyon’ as opposed to the grey wolf ‘Canis’ [5]. Analysis of the dire wolf  COL1 DNA sequence suggested that they were not closely related to grey wolves, African wolves (Canis lupaster) or dogs (Canis familiaris), and there was no evidence for interbreeding between the dire wolf and any of these species; meaning they have no relation to the grey wolves we know today. They also evolved in geographical isolation – with grey wolves evolving throughout Asia, and dire wolves evolving predominantly in the Americas [6]. It is thought that they evolved separately but through convergent evolution developed similar characteristics (fur, long snouts, large ears with keen hearing) based on similar ecological niches – such as habitat and prey type.   

Although over 200,000 fossilised remains of the dire wolf have been found throughout America [1], even having all this potential DNA for recovery, there would still need to be input from other species to fill in the missing portions of the dire wolf’s genetic code. So, the scientists responsible edited grey wolf DNA to select for traits that were characteristic of dire wolves, such as white fur, and those larger and strong mastoid muscles. The embryos were carried by dog mothers and three supposedly dire wolf pups were born from this. Essentially, they modified modern grey wolves (remember – a completely different evolutionary lineage) to resemble ancient dire wolves, basically creating a whole new animal instead. This is still a feat in itself, don’t get me wrong, but it definitely doesn’t fulfil the claim of resurrecting a completely extinct animal. Nor is it as flashy, glamorous or even newsworthy. 

Is de-extinction even really the right move? 

Realistically, we don’t know anything about a species that existed tens of thousands of years ago; there was no one there to study the behaviour or physiology of these animals. The three pups were born in isolation, and as such will remain their whole lives without a pack, and without parents to teach them social cues [7]. They won’t be allowed to breed – because scientists can’t just create new lineages as they please. Their prey is gone; their ecology has changed. It wouldn’t be possible to ever release a resurrected species based on the lack of knowledge of their ecology, not knowing their temperament or what conditions they are suited to environmentally for example – so while it’s an interesting concept, is it really worth it for the half-life it would give the animal?  

It is, at best, naïve to want to bring back an extinct animal and at worst, irresponsible and negligent. 

The question remains: why waste resources and effort, energy and time bringing back a species that was selected against thousands of years ago when there are thousands of species populations on the brink of collapse, in dire need (sorry) of conservation. We are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction – the Anthropocene Extinction. While extinction is a regular process of life on Earth – species come and go all the time as natural selection selects for and against them – this time it’s different. Rather than being caused by the likes of volcanic activity, asteroid impact, or an ice age, the Anthropocene Extinction is solely driven by human activity, and species are being driven to extinction 100x faster than they would’ve been naturally [8], with more than 6,000 species being threatened today. Now, nature doesn’t dictate which animals go extinct, but rather humans decide which animals are worth saving.  

Rather than bringing back a species that went extinct naturally 13,000 years ago, why not focus efforts on resurrecting species that have gone extinct in the past 20 years whose habitats still remain, such as the Yangzte River Dolphin (extinct: 2007), the Pinta Giant Tortoise (the last one, named Lonesome George, died in 2012), or most recently, the Northern White Rhinoceros (extinct: 2018).  

However, even then, species resurrected this way would be considered endangered and would require conservation, for which resources are already lacking. The idea of using de-extinction as a backup for failed conservation attempts is comparable to the ‘There’s no Planet B’ slogan when the prospect of inhabiting Mars was in talks. There’s no backtracking on the impact we’ve had on our biodiversity. There’s no way of using de-extinction to resuscitate a collapsing ecosystem as species die off. The only way forward is to cultivate better attempts at preserving what we already have. While I don’t think it’s prudent to use this technology to resurrect extinct animals, synthetic biology and DNA editing like this definitely show promise working alongside threatened and endangered species to select for traits that enhance their survival helping them to adapt to an ever-changing environment or to resist emerging diseases.  

What was once just a plot in a 90s film has become a reality, but the ethical dilemma remains – in trying to rewrite the past, are we just ignoring the crisis unfolding in the present?  

Sources:  

[1] Anyonge, W., Roman, C., 2006. New body mass estimates for Canis dirus, the extinct Pleistocene dire wolf. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.  

[2] Anyonge, W., Baker, A., 2006. Craniofacial morphology and feeding behavior in Canis dirus, the extinct Pleistocene dire wolf. Journal of Zoology 269, 309–316.  

[3] Endo, H., Taru, H., Nakamura, K., et al, 1999. MRI Examination of the Masticatory Muscles in the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus), with Special Reference to the M. temporalis. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 61, 581–586. 

[4] Gill, V. 2025. Experts dispute colossal claim dire wolf back from extinction. BBC. [online]  

[5] Perri, A.R., Mitchell, K.J., Mouton, et al, 2021. Dire wolves were the last of an ancient New World canid lineage. Nature 591, 87–91. 

[6] Bergström, A., Stanton, D.W.G., Taron, U.H., et al, 2022. Grey wolf genomic history reveals a dual ancestry of dogs. Nature 607, 313–320.  

[7] Gill, M. 2025. Why resurrect the dire wolf when existing animals are facing extinction? The Guardian.  [online]  

[8] Cummings, S. 2023. Study finds human-driven mass extinction is eliminating entire branches of the tree of life. Stanford Report [online]