Colossal Biosciences, a Dallas-based biotech firm valued at $10 billion, has raised $435 million to spearhead the resurrection of the woolly mammoth—a species that disappeared over 4,000 years ago. The company also plans to clone the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger. Its recent creation of a genetically modified mouse with a mammoth-like woolly coat has sparked international headlines, reigniting debate over de-extinction.
The Mammoth Mirage
While the idea of seeing woolly mammoths roam tundras once more captivates the public imagination, experts warn that resurrecting extinct species could distract from more pressing conservation efforts. Critics argue that billions of dollars spent on cloning mammoths might be better allocated to protecting endangered species, preserving ecosystems, and securing biodiversity. Cloning, they contend, is a technology that has long been misunderstood.
READ MORE: SpaceX Capsule Docks to Bring Home Stranded NASA Astronauts
“Cloning is not about creating an exact copy—it’s more akin to assembling a puzzle from fragments of ancient DNA,” notes Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine. Caplan questions whether resurrected animals would suffer from health issues or inadequate habitats. He adds, “People might think it’s cool or neat, but they haven’t thought it through.”
Cloning: Science and Its Limitations
The process of cloning a mammoth would involve reconstructing its genome by splicing together DNA from frozen carcasses with that of its closest living relative, the Asian elephant. Despite advancements in synthetic genomics, many genetic variants in these ancient sequences appear in less than 5% of the population, and the resulting animal may only be “mammoth-like” rather than a true replica. Historical attempts at cloning—from Dolly the sheep to various pet clones—underscore the challenges of replicating the full essence of an organism, as even identical twins develop unique traits.
Alternative Investments for Biodiversity
Instead of channeling vast sums into de-extinction, conservationists suggest alternative projects that could yield more tangible benefits for the planet:
- Building Biosphere 3: Inspired by the lessons of Biosphere 2, a new self-sustaining biosphere could provide critical data for colonizing the Moon or Mars and help humanity better understand how to manage Earth’s own ecosystems.
- Ecosystem Preservation: Protecting fragile ecosystems—such as biodiversity hotspots or endangered amphibian habitats—could stave off irreversible losses. One poignant example is the plight of a mountaintop ecosystem in Haiti, where unique frog species face extinction due to deforestation.
- Saving Colossal Creatures: Focusing on protecting species like the North Atlantic right whale, of which fewer than 400 remain, could offer a far more impactful return on investment. These whales, endangered by industrial fishing and urban encroachment, represent a critical component of marine biodiversity.
A Call for Strategic Conservation
While the allure of de-extincting icons like the woolly mammoth is undeniable, many argue that our limited conservation funds would do far more to secure the future of our planet if they were directed towards protecting species that are still with us. Investing in seed banks, for example, or developing advanced repositories to safeguard genetic material could better prepare humanity for future environmental catastrophes without the ethical and practical complications of cloning extinct animals.
Colossal Biosciences’ de-extinction efforts could spark valuable discussions among world leaders, ecologists, and bioethicists. However, the consensus among many conservation experts is that, in the race to save our planet, focusing on present-day biodiversity may prove far more fruitful than reviving long-gone giants.
As we face escalating challenges from climate change and habitat loss, the debate continues: Should we pursue the allure of resurrecting extinct species, or invest in preserving the rich tapestry of life that remains on Earth? The answer, according to many in the scientific community, lies in securing the future of today’s ecosystems rather than reanimating the past.
