Latest news with #Colossal
Scoop
a day ago
- Science
- Scoop
How Much Of The Past Should We Bring Back To Life?
There is an incredible amount of scientific effort put toward understanding the past and bringing some of it back to life. Everyone agrees it's nice to have some old structures around—like the pyramids at Giza and the Great Wall of China—but what about the living creatures we once lived alongside? With recent advances in genetic technology, de-extinction may be a possibility—but should we be doing it? Several scientific disciplines are currently geared specifically to provide us with realistic insights into what life would have been like in the past. Archaeology in particular has rank after rank of specialists tuned toward reconstructing the built environment—monuments, houses, caves, and even whole towns—and the ways people would have lived in those environments. We conduct these experiments to understand the choices our species has made as we evolved into the cultures and societies that exist today, and we conserve the walls and temples of our pasts because they mean something to the people who visit them. We have highly trained conservators who carefully rebuild, brick by brick, the great Mesopotamian temples of 5,500 years ago (alongside conservators who are not as well-trained but whose good intentions outstrip their abilities, as seen with the case of the Ecce Homo reconstruction in Borja, Spain). There are also an extraordinary number of experimental archaeology projects aimed at unraveling even the most intangible mysteries of the past—helping us see that the beautiful Paleolithic art in caves like Lascaux may have been an early form of animation when seen under a torch, or that making some stone tools requires special cognitive abilities. Advances in technology make the reconstruction of the past increasingly realistic. But what if we could recreate the living environment of our evolutionary past? What if we could bring back species that haven't been seen since the last Ice Age? This is exactly the question that a major new research effort is asking. The Colossal project is a private enterprise that wants to use advances in genetics to attempt the 'de-extinction' or 'resurrection' of an iconic Ice Age animal: the woolly mammoth. De-extinction has certainly grabbed imaginations (not to mention headlines), but as research funding is squeezed by economic conditions around the globe, scientists must ask themselves: what will this achieve? For Colossal, there are clear benefits. There is the wow factor of creating a cold-adapted elephant that has not existed for thousands of years, and of course, there is the potential of developing new and, possibly, incredibly lucrative bioscience tech based on modifying genetics. Perhaps these technologies could save animals from extinction and bring back the past, even if many scientists are concerned about the prospect due to ethical and technical reasons. However, as archaeology has learned, bringing back the past is never as straightforward as it seems. Something as obvious as preserving 1,000-year-old ruins for future generations to marvel at becomes less clear-cut when future generations might need to build their own monuments and walls (or even just roads). How much of the past should we bring back? The debate over how much of the Stonehenge prehistoric landscape should be sacrificed to build a tunnel for one of the most congested roads in England has shown that even trained professionals can't agree on what is 'enough' of the past to save. This makes for some tricky questions for those who want to rebuild and recreate the past. What will happen if we really do succeed in the 'de-extinction' of a woolly mammoth—an animal that will be born alone into a world that it is not adapted to? Will it help us save the elephants that are under threat today? Colossal is putting a lot of effort into elephant conservation, but how will creating a genetically cold-adapted elephant address the habitat loss that has led our big-bodied species to face extinction? Would we be better off spending our research efforts on recreating the environments of the past, or the charismatic animals who once roamed them? What parts of the past to preserve—and which to leave behind—remains a complicated tangle of ethical, practical, and even philosophical quandaries. The toppling of a historic statue of a slave trader into Bristol harbor in 2021 by outraged citizens is a clear example of how governments, citizens, and professionals are still grappling with how we bring the past into the present. As technology advances, we will be confronted with even thornier issues—like the ethics of bringing animals or even people back to life. If we cannot agree on the morality of preserving the past as a cold metal statue, how will we resolve the question surrounding the consequences of bringing something that lives and breathes back into the world? Author Bio: Brenna R. Hassett, PhD, is a biological anthropologist and archaeologist at the University of Central Lancashire and a scientific associate at the Natural History Museum, London. In addition to researching the effects of changing human lifestyles on the human skeleton and teeth in the past, she writes for a more general audience about evolution and archaeology, including the Times (UK) top 10 science book of 2016 Built on Bones: 15,000 Years of Urban Life and Death, and her most recent book, Growing Up Human: The Evolution of Childhood. She is also a co-founder of TrowelBlazers, an activist archive celebrating the achievements of women in the 'digging' sciences.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Instead of 'de-extincting' dire wolves, scientists should use gene editing to protect living, endangered species
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of "Game of Thrones" author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a "de-extinction" company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a Ph.D. in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term "endangered species." The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents over 12 million base pair differences. Related: Colossal's de-extincted 'dire wolf' isn't a dire wolf and it has not been de-extincted, experts say More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the "functional de-extinction" game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck" school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy — the science of naming and categorizing living organisms — are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of "species," and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid "species" and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their "aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people." In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just "pick your favorite species and call up Colossal"? Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a "lost" population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned "ghost" red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. RELATED STORIES —Colossal's de-extinction campaign is built on a semantic house of cards with shoddy foundations — and the consequences are dire —'Our animals are gray wolves': Colossal didn't de-extinct dire wolves, chief scientist clarifies —How related are dire wolves and gray wolves? The answer might surprise you. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these "ghost wolves" into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic "purity" versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem — especially habitat destruction. The ability to make "functional" copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. This edited article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
SXSW London: Man hoping to bring dodo and mammoth back to life teases Jurassic Park collaboration
The man working on bringing the dodo and woolly mammoth back to Earth has hinted at the SXSW London event at a collaboration between his bioscience lab Colossal and the Jurassic Park films. The entrepreneur Ben Lamm, founder of Colossal Biosciences, has long been asked about the parallels between his work and the films of Jurassic Park, but has insisted returning the dinosaurs to Earth isn't possible at present due to the lack of available DNA. Dodos and mammoths died out more recently and DNA is available from fossils. Speaking at the SXSW London event in Shoreditch, Lamm teased a future partnership. During a panel discussion with the actor Sophie Turner, Lamm said he was 'very excited about Jurassic Park, and maybe there's future things coming. Not in the dinosaur world, but with those guys.' Lamm has always insisted his 198 employees at Colossal Biosciences are nothing like the fictitious world of Jurassic Park. Speaking to The Guardian earlier this year when asked about the comparison, he said: 'People have to remember that that was a movie, right?' Jurassic World Rebirth, the sixth film in the franchise, arrives in UK cinemas on 2 July. Colossal Biosciences has used genetic engineering processes to bring back to life the dire wolf, an extinct species that lived around 10,000 years ago. The three dire wolves are in a private 2,000-acre ecological preserve somewhere in the US, although the location has not been revealed. They are named Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, inspired by the TV series Game of Thrones. Also at the SXSW London event, Lamm revealed he hoped to share further news about Colossal's journey to returning the Dodo to Earth this summer. SXSW London features panels and events with entrepreneurs, film-makers, musicians and thought leaders and runs in Shoreditch until 7 June. Mayor Sadiq Khan opened the event, which originated in Texas in 1987, by pitching London as an international AI hub. Read more:
Fast Company
11-06-2025
- Science
- Fast Company
Is ‘de-extinction' here? How gene editing can help endangered species
IMPACT Gene editing's real value is not in re-creating copies of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Red Wolves are seen at the North Carolina Museum of Life + Science on Thursday, November 8, 2017, in Durham, NC. [Photo: Salwan Georges/The] BY Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 8:48 Have you been hearing about the dire wolf lately? Maybe you saw a massive white wolf on the cover of Time magazine or a photo of Game of Thrones author George R.R. Martin holding a puppy named after a character from his books. The dire wolf, a large, wolflike species that went extinct about 12,000 years ago, has been in the news after biotech company Colossal claimed to have resurrected it using cloning and gene-editing technologies. Colossal calls itself a ' de-extinction ' company. The very concept of de-extinction is a lightning rod for criticism. There are broad accusations of playing God or messing with nature, as well as more focused objections that contemporary de-extinction tools create poor imitations rather than truly resurrected species. While the biological and philosophical debates are interesting, the legal ramifications for endangered species conservation are of paramount importance. As a legal scholar with a PhD in wildlife genetics, my work focuses on how we legally define the term 'endangered species.' The use of biotechnology for conservation, whether for de-extinction or genetic augmentation of existing species, promises solutions to otherwise intractable problems. But it needs to work in harmony with both the letter and purpose of the laws governing biodiversity conservation. Of dire wolves and de-extinction What did Colossal actually do? Scientists extracted and sequenced DNA from Ice Age-era bones to understand the genetic makeup of the dire wolf. They were able to piece together around 90% of a complete dire wolf genome. While the gray wolf and the dire wolf are separated by a few million years of evolution, they share over 99.5% of their genomes. Subscribe to the Daily Company's trending stories delivered to you every day SIGN UP The scientists scanned the recovered dire wolf sequences for specific genes that they believed were responsible for the physical and ecological differences between dire wolves and other species of canids, including genes related to body size and coat color. CRISPR gene-editing technology allows scientists to make specific changes in the DNA of an organism. The Colossal team used CRISPR to make 20 changes in 14 different genes in a modern gray wolf cell before implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother. While the technology on display is marvelous, what should we call the resulting animals? Some commentators argue that the animals are just modified gray wolves. They point out that it would take far more than 20 edits to bridge the gap left by millions of years of evolution. For instance, that 0.5% of the genome that doesn't match in the two species represents more than 12 million base pair differences. More philosophically, perhaps, other skeptics argue that a species is more than a collection of genes devoid of environmental, ecological, or evolutionary context. Colossal, on the other hand, maintains that it is in the 'functional de-extinction' game. The company acknowledges it isn't making a perfect dire wolf copy. Instead it wants to recreate something that looks and acts like the dire wolf of old. It prefers the 'if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck' school of speciation. Disagreements about taxonomy —the science of naming and categorizing living organisms—are as old as the field itself. Biologists are notorious for failing to adopt a single clear definition of 'species,' and there are dozens of competing definitions in the biological literature. Biologists can afford to be flexible and imprecise when the stakes are merely a conversational misunderstanding. Lawyers and policymakers, on the other hand, do not have that luxury. Deciding what counts as an endangered 'species' In the United States, the Endangered Species Act is the main tool for protecting biodiversity. To be protected by the act, an organism must be a member of an endangered or threatened species. Some of the most contentious ESA issues are definitional, such as whether the listed species is a valid 'species' and whether individual organisms, especially hybrids, are members of the listed species. Colossal's functional species concept is anathema to the Endangered Species Act. It shrinks the value of a species down to the way it looks or the way it functions. When passing the act, however, Congress made clear that species were to be valued for their 'aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.' In my view, the myopic focus on function seems to miss the point. Despite its insistence otherwise, Colossal's definitional sleight of hand has opened the door to arguments that people should reduce conservation funding or protections for currently imperiled species. Why spend the money to protect a critter and its habitat when, according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, you can just ' pick your favorite species and call up Colossal '? Putting biotechnology to work for conservation Biotechnology can provide real conservation benefits for today's endangered species. I suggest gene editing's real value is not in recreating facsimiles of long-extinct species like dire wolves, but instead using it to recover ones in trouble now. Projects, by both Colossal and other groups, are underway around the world to help endangered species develop disease resistance or evolve to tolerate a warmer world. Other projects use gene editing to reintroduce genetic variation into populations where genetic diversity has been lost. For example, Colossal has also announced that it has cloned a red wolf. Unlike the dire wolf, the red wolf is not extinct, though it came extremely close. After decades of conservation efforts, there are about a dozen red wolves in the wild in the reintroduced population in eastern North Carolina, as well as a few hundred red wolves in captivity. The entire population of red wolves, both wild and captive, descends from merely 14 founders of the captive breeding program. This limited heritage means the species has lost a significant amount of the genetic diversity that would help it continue to evolve and adapt. In order to reintroduce some of that missing genetic diversity, you'd need to find genetic material from red wolves outside the managed population. Right now that would require stored tissue samples from animals that lived before the captive breeding program was established or rediscovering a 'lost' population in the wild. Recently, researchers discovered that coyotes along the Texas Gulf Coast possess a sizable percentage of red wolf-derived DNA in their genomes. Hybridization between coyotes and red wolves is both a threat to red wolves and a natural part of their evolutionary history, complicating management. The red wolf genes found within these coyotes do present a possible source of genetic material that biotechnology could harness to help the captive breeding population if the legal hurdles can be managed. This coyote population was Colossal's source for its cloned 'ghost' red wolf. Even this announcement is marred by definitional confusion. Due to its hybrid nature, the animal Colossal cloned is likely not legally considered a red wolf at all. Under the Endangered Species Act, hybrid organisms are typically not protected. So by cloning one of these animals, Colossal likely sidestepped the need for ESA permits. It will almost certainly run into resistance if it attempts to breed these 'ghost wolves' into the current red wolf captive breeding program that has spent decades trying to minimize hybridization. How much to value genetic 'purity' versus genetic diversity in managed species still proves an extraordinarily difficult question, even without the legal uncertainty. Biotechnology could never solve every conservation problem—especially habitat destruction. The ability to make 'functional' copies of a species certainly does not lessen the urgency to respond to biodiversity loss, nor does it reduce human beings' moral culpability. But to adequately respond to the ever-worsening biodiversity crisis, conservationists will need all available tools. Alex Erwin is an assistant professor of law at Florida International University. The final deadline for Fast Company's Next Big Things in Tech Awards is Friday, June 20, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Madiha Chan Named Entrepreneur of Impact Champion
PHOENIX, June 10, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Colossal, the nation's leading professional fundraiser, is proud to announce that Madiha Chan, founder and CEO of JustB, has been named the 2025 Entrepreneur of Impact. As thousands of participants vied for the coveted title, Chan emerged as a standout for her vision, values, and innovative approach to inclusive beauty. The competition successfully raised $2,777,012 to benefit GENYOUth, a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting the health and wellness of America's schoolchildren. A recognized tech leader and mission-driven founder, Chan is the force behind JustB—a beauty startup that's reimagining cosmetics for women of all skin tones. Her brand, which champions multipurpose, eco-friendly products, is breaking barriers in an industry that too often overlooks women with deeper skin tones. "I built JustB because I was tired of seeing women who look like me treated as an afterthought," she said. "This win isn't just mine—it belongs to every entrepreneur creating from a place of passion, purpose, and persistence." As the 2025 Entrepreneur of Impact, Chan will receive a $25,000 cash prize and a one-on-one mentorship session with Shark Tank's Daymond John. She will also appear in an advertorial in Forbes, the leading voice in global entrepreneurship. "Ms. Chan is a shining example of how innovation and impact go hand in hand," said Mary Hagen, CEO of Colossal. "She's redefining what success looks like, not just in beauty, but in business. We're thrilled to spotlight her story and help fuel her future." Powered by Purpose Entrepreneur of Impact is more than a competition—it's a platform for changemakers. This year's effort raised over $2.77 million to support GENYOUth, a 501c3 national nonprofit dedicated to helping schoolchildren thrive by living a well-nourished and physically active life. A catalyst for youth health and wellness, GENYOUth has supported over 77,000 U.S. schools to equip them with the resources needed to ensure millions of children have equitable access to nutrition and physical activity. To learn more and show support, visit "Entrepreneurship is the engine of innovation," said Daymond John, who partnered with Colossal for the campaign. "This competition gives visionaries the boost they need to turn their ideas into impact—and I can't wait to mentor Chan as she takes JustB to the next level." Sponsored by PrismJet This year's competition was proudly sponsored by PrismJet, a premier provider of private aviation services. PrismJet delivers concierge-level charter travel and full-service aircraft management for jet owners, ensuring every journey is safe, seamless, and stress-free. Scaling Impact in 2026 The Entrepreneur of Impact competition proved to be mighty in impact. The success of this inaugural run sets the stage for expansion in 2026—offering a clear opportunity for additional industry leaders to plug into a powerful, purpose-driven initiative. With the foundation now in place, the future of Entrepreneur of Impact is wide open for new collaborations and next-level impact. To learn more about the annual competition, visit ABOUT COLOSSAL Colossal is a nationally registered professional fundraiser that inspires people to advocate for themselves and those in need. Through online competitions like Entrepreneur of Impact, participants have the opportunity to make their mark while also making a big impact. Colossal competitions serve as fundraising campaigns for DTCare, a United States 501(c)(3) public charity organization, which then grants donation funds to specified charities at the completion of the competitions. Learn more at Who's Next? About GENYOUthGENYOUth is a 501c3 national nonprofit dedicated to helping schoolchildren thrive by living a well-nourished and physically active life. A catalyst for youth health and wellness, GENYOUth has supported over 77,000 U.S. schools to equip them with the resources needed to ensure millions of children have equitable access to nutrition and physical activity. Founded by America's dairy farmers and the NFL, GENYOUth convenes a network of private and public partners, including Fortune 100 companies and foundations to ensure all children are nourished and active to be their best selves. With a commitment to end student hunger, GENYOUth provides nutrition grants to increase access to healthy school meals among food insecure students. To learn more and support GENYOUth, visit and follow us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE COLOSSAL
