Why flashy de-extinction claims reveal deeper issues in science and trust

Why claims about ‘resurrected’ dire wolves reveal deeper challenges in science communication

Colossal Biosciences’s bold announcement raises questions about money, media, and the bar for belief

Last week, headlines blazed with the announcement that biotech start-up Colossal Biosciences had "resurrected" the extinct dire wolf, a creature that vanished over 10,000 years ago. According to the Texas-based company, modifying just 20 genes in modern grey wolf DNA was enough to bring the legendary predator back. But the scientific community is far from convinced.

Critics, including biologists and geneticists, argue that the resulting animals are not dire wolves, but genetically tweaked grey wolves—far from a true recreation. Despite this, major news outlets parroted Colossal’s dramatic framing, reporting as if extinction had truly been reversed. The episode illustrates a broader trend: when money talks, critical scrutiny often quiets.

Wealth and trust: a modern scientific paradox

In a focus group designed to explore how people decide whom to trust, one participant said, “I trust people who are wealthy.” The sentiment, though surprising, may help explain why claims from highly funded private firms like Colossal are met with less skepticism, even when the underlying evidence is limited or contested.

Colossal, which is reportedly valued at over $10 billion, benefits from a media environment where money, branding, and bold narratives often outpace peer review. The company has leveraged its PR machinery to position itself as a leader in the growing “de-extinction” industry, claiming it will also revive the woolly mammoth and dodo bird.

But the dire wolf episode is a reminder that scientific credibility is not measured by valuation or virality. True de-extinction would require a full recreation of the extinct genome and an animal indistinguishable from its ancient counterpart—not simply superficial edits to a related species.

When science becomes a branding tool

Colossal’s claims are part of a larger pattern in private science, where corporate funding and media campaigns often blur the lines between credible discovery and speculative storytelling.

Consider:

• Microsoft’s quantum computing claims, which have drawn skepticism from leading physicists over a supposed breakthrough in “topological qubits.”

• Bristol Myers Squibb, recently reprimanded by the FDA for allegedly misleading cancer drug claims on its website.

• Tech companies pushing AI narratives, suggesting that large language models could soon solve all human problems, despite known limitations and biases.

These examples highlight a growing risk: when scientific messaging is driven by valuation goals, not validation processes, public understanding—and trust—can suffer.

Media amplification and public perception

Much of this dynamic is enabled by the media’s uncritical amplification of private-sector science. With fewer science journalists trained to parse technical claims, and a 24/7 news cycle hungry for breakthroughs, companies with PR budgets and polished visuals can shape narratives with limited accountability.

“Rather than assuming all research has been honestly conducted, we should start from a place of caution,” said Richard Smith, former editor of The BMJ. He referenced a troubling estimate that up to 20% of published health science studies may be fraudulent—a stark warning about the need for skepticism, even in supposedly well-regulated sectors.

The transparency gap in private research

One key issue is that many of these companies, including Colossal, are not obligated to make their research publicly available. Unlike publicly funded academic science, private research often occurs behind closed doors, revealed only through press releases or selective access. This lack of transparency further challenges verification and undermines the collaborative nature of scientific progress.

In this context, public trust becomes a resource—one that companies actively seek to cultivate, sometimes through hype rather than substance.

Raising the bar for belief

If, as the focus group suggests, society tends to equate wealth with credibility, it becomes even more important to question the source and motivation behind scientific claims—particularly when PR outpaces peer review.

When billion-dollar companies proclaim that they’ve brought back extinct species, built world-changing quantum machines, or developed miracle drugs, it’s tempting to believe. But belief in science must be grounded in evidence, replication, and transparency—not in valuations or celebrity endorsements.

In the age of hyper-funded, media-savvy private research, a healthy dose of skepticism may be the most scientifically sound approach.

Stay tuned to The Horizons Times for deeper analysis of science, innovation, and the forces shaping how we understand them.