On Bringing Back the Dire Wolf
Christian Ethics On the Dire Wolf's "De-Extinction"
A version of this story originally appeared in the April 12, 2025, edition of Project 18:15.
“The dire wolf is back after over 10,000 years,” wrote Time on social media two weeks ago. The news site’s article describes how a company called Colossal Biosciences used “ancient, preserved DNA” to map the dire wolf genome, edit gray wolf genes “to match it,” and oversee the birth (via surrogacy) of three dire wolves, a species of wolf that is said to have gone extinct millennia ago.
While this presentation of the project offers Colossal’s “de-extinction” narrative in a seemingly uncritical fashion, some reactions to the news have been less credulous or laudatory.
To achieve the result of unusually large wolves with a particular face shape and striking white hair, the biotech company made 20 genetic changes across 14 genes. Does that make it a dire wolf? As reported in MIT Technology Review, biological science scholar Anders Bergström, who specializes in the study of canines, says no.
“I would say such an animal is not a dire wolf and it’s not correct to say dire wolves have been brought back from extinction. It’s a modified gray wolf. . . . Twenty changes is not nearly enough. But it could get you a strange-looking gray wolf.”
Dire wolf or not, does Christianity have anything to say about cloning animals like this? After an email exchange with a professor of Christian ethics, here are a few general points to consider regarding biomedicine and biotechnology (cloning, stem cell research, etc.).
1. We should recognize that humans are different from animals.
We alone are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and are, therefore, more valuable (Luke 12:7). So, even if cloning animals is morally permissible, that doesn’t mean cloning humans is.
2. Still, we need to care about and for animals.
Our God-given dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 8:6-8) implies a duty to care for them. As the proverb says explicitly, “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast” (Proverbs 12:10a). The vast majority of cloning attempts fail (the average success rate is only 9.4 percent), and “successful” clones often suffer from many ailments. Also, introducing new or “de-extinct” animals could disrupt animal ecosystems.
“Colossal claims that the same techniques it uses to summon back species from the dead could prevent existing but endangered animals from slipping into extinction themselves,” the Time article reports. Is this a way of caring for the animals? Maybe. But what about the animal suffering we cause in the process? For that matter, are we “playing God” by trying to save a species that would otherwise naturally go extinct? What is the balance of our responsibility to care for a species versus an individual of that species? There are myriad moral issues to consider. And on that point:
3. Broadly, we too often run roughshod over moral issues in pursuit of knowledge and progress.
Moral considerations and regulations lag behind technological advances when they should precede them.
4. In all our undertakings, we ought to reflect on the significance of being human and finite—i.e., not God.
Some are too quick to say something is “playing God,” but others are happy to do just that, refusing to acknowledge God and thinking we have the power, right, and wisdom to do what we will. In the words of theologian and ethicist Paul Ramsey, “We should not play God before we have learned to be men, and as we learn to be men we will not want to play God.”
To explore and keep abreast of issues in bioethics from a Christian perspective, check out the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.
P.S. This story of Christian concern originally appeared in Project 18:15, my weekly briefing of news, Bible, and history. Get the next one in your inbox this weekend:
Then, subscribe here on Substack for reposts like this one: