Woolly mice are cute and impressive – but they won't bring back mammoths or save endangered species:
US company Colossal Biosciences has announced the creation of a "woolly mouse" — a laboratory mouse with a series of genetic modifications that lead to a woolly coat. The company claims this is the first step toward "de-extincting" the woolly mammoth.
The successful genetic modification of a laboratory mouse is a testament to the progress science has made in understanding gene function, developmental biology and genome editing. But does a woolly mouse really teach us anything about the woolly mammoth?
Woolly mammoths were cold-adapted members of the elephant family, which disappeared from mainland Siberia at the end of the last Ice Age around 10,000 years ago. The last surviving population, on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean, went extinct about 4,000 years ago.
The house mouse (Mus musculus) is a far more familiar creature, which most of us know as a kitchen pest. It is also one of the most studied organisms in biology and medical research. We know more about this laboratory mouse than perhaps any other mammal besides humans.
Colossal details its new research in a pre-print paper, which has not yet been peer-reviewed. According to the paper, the researchers disrupted the normal function of seven different genes in laboratory mice via gene editing.
Six of these genes were targeted because a large body of existing research on the mouse model had already demonstrated their roles in hair-related traits, such as coat colour, texture and thickness.
The modifications in a seventh gene — FABP2 — was based on evidence from the woolly mammoth genome. The gene is involved in the transport of fats in the body.
Woolly mammoths had a slightly shorter version of the gene, which the researchers believe may have contributed to its adaptation to life in cold climates. However, the "woolly mice" with the mammoth-style variant of FABP2 did not show significant differences in body mass compared to regular lab mice.
This work shows the promise of targeted editing of genes of known function in mice. After further testing, this technology may have a future place in conservation efforts. But it's a long way from holding promise for de-extinction.
Colossal Biosciences claims it is on track to produce a genetically modified "mammoth-like" elephant by 2028, but what makes a mammoth unique is more than skin-deep.
De-extinction would need to go beyond modifying an existing species to show superficial traits from an extinct relative. Many aspects of an extinct species' biology remain unknown. A woolly coat is one thing. Recreating the entire suite of adaptations, including genetic, epigenetic and behavioural traits that allowed mammoths to thrive in ice age environments, is another.
Unlike the thylacine (or Tasmanian tiger) — another species Colossal aims to resurrect — the mammoth has a close living relative in the modern Asian elephant. The closer connections between the genomes of these two species may make mammoth de-extinction more technically feasible than that of the thylacine.
But whether or not a woolly mouse brings us any closer to that prospect, this story forces us to consider some important ethical questions. Even if we could bring back the woolly mammoth, should we? Is the motivation behind this effort conservation, or entertainment? Is it ethical to bring a species back into an environment that may no longer sustain it?
In Australia alone, we've lost at least 100 species to extinction since European colonisation in 1788, largely due the introduction of feral predators and land clearing.
The idea of reversing extinction is understandably appealing. We might like to think we could undo the past.
Journal Reference: Rui Chen, Kanokwan Srirattana, Melissa L. Coquelin, et al., Multiplex-edited mice recapitulate woolly mammoth hair phenotypes, bioRxiv, https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.03.641227
(Score: 5, Interesting) by HeadlineEditor on Thursday March 13, @10:06AM (11 children)
Yes, dammit.
Why does it have to be either? Is either insufficient? Or perhaps maybe just because science? Why did we go to the moon? Mammoths are *cool!*
Oh jeez. Should we also worry then about preserving still extant species if we suspect their environment may be fading? Let's just euthanize them all now!
Still, TFA makes some valid scientific points, like just adding hair to an elephant doesn't make a mammoth. Recently we had an article about the curious rise of certain blood groups in a relatively short evolutionary time scale, suggesting that perhaps resistance to particular pathogens was a strong selector. We might resurrect a mammoth (or some other species) only to find that we need to edit in some different Rh factor because they keep dying of malaria or whatever. My point is that hairy mice are a great first step, and we will continue learning. Bring back mammoths first, and then yes let's do dinosaurs!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday March 13, @11:45AM (2 children)
No, FFS.
Technological/engineering, yes, it solves a problem (that noone asked to be solved) with science.
But otherwise what's so sciency in that? Will you discover new things? Can you answer to other questions except "how to make a mammoth from an elephant"?
Objectively speaking, they are cold. Frozen to be precise. And about to thaw nowadays, because burning dyno juice and farts allow us to do *cool* things. Things like Bitcoin and scrolling mindlessly through TikTok vids in 30secs mind dumbing bites. How's humanity and the environment better because of those two?
Just because solving the global warming requires science, technology, resource management, etc. ? And lots of discipline. You know... discipline... the thing that asks you to restrain your impulses and stop chasing "cool" things just because?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday March 13, @02:02PM
Nonsense. What's one of the top environmental concerns? Species extinction. Here, we research how to bring back extinct species. What works with wooly mammoths can be applied to a lot more species.
How was humanity bettered by your silly argument above? The vast majority of things we do don't have to benefit humanity nor the environment. Why should anyone care that their thing looks "mind dumbing" to a clueless outsider? What's incredibly myopic about your argument is that bringing back mammoths is one of those things that can actually better humanity and the environment. The environments of North America and North Eurasia have been suffering for thousands of years because key parts of the ecosystems were driven to extinction by humans.
In other words, it requires a lot of religious woo and deep control of society. Somehow I'm not surprised to see this mix of climate alarmism and anti-mammoth hostility.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Friday March 14, @02:36AM
Should we start with our own species?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Thursday March 13, @12:41PM
Where are they going to live? We're already crowding out creatures a lot smaller than that.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by r_a_trip on Thursday March 13, @01:08PM (6 children)
So basically the "because we can" excuse. Okay, let's for the sake of argument, bring back that woolly mammoth. Then what? Keep 'em in a zoo? Reintroduce to the wild? If to the wild, do we accept the ecological damage of (re)introducing a foreign species? In most cases the artificial introduction of a newcomer to an existing environment doesn't turn out well.
Then after the woolly mammoth, we get what? Velociraptor? Brachiosaurus? Where do we put those?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday March 13, @01:53PM (2 children)
There is a profound dysfunction here in your logic. The wooly mammoth was a native species in large parts of the northern hemisphere until humans made them extinct.
(Score: 2) by r_a_trip on Friday March 14, @12:54PM (1 child)
Operative word "WAS". Is the habitat they once roamed in still intact? After 4000 years and numerous humans later, pretty doubtful. We can debate of course over what an acceptable cut off is for declaring an extinct species native or foreign based on how long they have been gone. I just don't see a place in this world for these recreated critters.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 14, @01:14PM
If it were, there wouldn't be an argument to reinsert the mammoth, would there?
Siberia and North America for starters would be obvious places for them.
(Score: 3, Funny) by HeadlineEditor on Thursday March 13, @02:13PM (2 children)
There's a lot of sad, lonely, angry people in this thread who don't want to see dinosaurs in a zoo.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13, @10:27PM (1 child)
I want to see sad lonely angry people in a zoo. Where's my thread?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 14, @11:52AM
> I want to see sad lonely angry people in a zoo. Where's my thread?
That already exists, just go to any large city
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Username on Thursday March 13, @02:33PM (4 children)
If we brought back Neanderthals, would they have human rights?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by HeadlineEditor on Thursday March 13, @02:45PM (3 children)
This is an excellent question, and something I had thought a little bit about myself. Relatedly, there is a notion that Neanderthals were actually vicious predators, [a.co] and that late modern human society (e.g. last 40kya ish) was shaped around protection from them. The science is a little thin, but the idea is compelling. Would they get "human rights" if we cloned them, and they turned out to be hairy ferocious monsters?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday March 13, @05:58PM
If they did, then if C.H.U.D. [youtu.be] had a sequel, it might be a courtroom drama.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Thursday March 13, @06:00PM
There's also evidence that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal populations interbred, [nih.gov] and genetic profiling services are today identifying their descendants by the Neanderthal DNA markers. There is no evidence that these descendants have any more propensity for violence than their purebred H.S. cousins.
I have a strong suspicion that if a Neanderthal or Denisovan were to time travel to the modern day that they would be able to speak modern languages and would be recognized as people. Seriously, my German and Italian friends with back/arm/leg hair thick enough to look like a wool coat don't get mistaken for monsters.
Let's maybe cut short the speculative xenophobia.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 13, @07:26PM
My take is that just like homo sapiens, there was probably a lot of variation from tribe to tribe. And some were pretty nasty. So even some evidence of predation on homo sapiens wouldn't say much unless there were evidence that it was near universal.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Samantha Wright on Thursday March 13, @08:04PM (3 children)
First: "functional de-extinction" is a scientifically-accepted term that means to create a new population of organisms that fills an empty niche. This may be as simple as importing a species from elsewhere that has similar attributes, or re-introducing a closely-related organism from an adjacent region. Bringing beavers and wolves back to Europe counts as functional de-extinction. Bringing hippos to Colombia [bbc.com] is (accidental) functional de-extinction, because there are many plants in the region that evolved to depend on extinct megafauna. (Humans wiped them out. It seems humans may do so again.)
In the case of the mammoth, there is no living organism suited to the niche, so to fulfil their mission, Colossal has to get creative. They're looking at the genes they need in order to breed an elephant that will survive in the mammoth niche, cherry-picking genes both from the available mammoth genome and from other species.
Second: The article insinuates (and the summary encourages) that some Jurassic-Park-type "true de-extinction" shit is necessary, where long-dead creatures are miraculously recreated. Perhaps they were blinded by the word "de-extinction" and didn't actually read the company's mission statement [colossal.com]. This is impossible or impractical in almost all cases because current sequencing techniques don't preserve the 3D structure of chromosomes. An entire synthesized DNA molecule cannot actually "boot up" on its own because it's missing all of the epigenetic markers and support structure that regulates its behavior. Right now our best tools allow us to patch in new fragments of chromosomes to replace or supplement an existing genome, but these new fragments don't have any of the metadata they should. All we can do is cross our fingers and hope the cell's machinery re-annotates it correctly, which is a gamble (depending on the gene.) Changes that are too big will simply fail.
So, instead of trying to do that, Colossal is using a more practical approach, by focusing on functional de-extinction instead. That means hacking animals for which we do have a functioning germline until they resemble what we want. It won't be as optimized for the environment, since they'll be missing all the subtle variations that accumulate over thousands or millions of years of micro-evolution, but those might be able to re-evolve if the new organism is at all successful in its environment. TFA notes that these problems exist, but doesn't give Colossal any credit for it, nor consider that they might re-evolve if the faux-mammoth is adequate at survival. (Evolution has repeatedly created cats [youtube.com] and crabs [youtube.com] numerous times. It's full of local optima that populations can gravitate towards. The mammoth probably isn't entirely unique or irreproducible in this sense.)
Third: Directly bringing back most extinct species would not be a good idea. The pressures that caused them to go extinct (invasive species, humans, climate change, et cetera) are still present. Colossal is aware of this, and much of their mission statement [colossal.com] discusses strengthening their new organisms against various obstacles to success. Even if they get lucky and they have the opportunity to perform 'true' de-extinction, they probably wouldn't simply re-release a species without tinkering with it first, to ensure it can cope with the present reality.
If that last suggestion sounds a little dangerous or arrogant, remember the whole endeavor constitutes playing god. Humans have never needed a syringe to fuck up nature—consider the difference between a wolf and a barely-able-to-breathe pug.
The final call to action of TFA is to encourage emphasis on conservation of what we still have instead of re-engineering what we've already lost. This is a false dichotomy: the major obstacle to effective conservation is a lack of political willpower to sacrifice human interests for ecological ones. Colossal's mission—involving experts whose talents are scarcely relevant to conservation fieldwork—is simply another part of a comprehensive solution to the problem. Separately, they intend to collect genetic material for failing species to protect them from extinction, but this, again, is a failsafe (and an unproven one at that) for conservation projects that fall through, and does not compete with conservation for the actual resources required to prevent biome collapse from accelerating.
I believe that conservation work is possibly the single most important thing a human can do with their life—but lashing out at your allies because you're not making as much progress as you'd like is purely counterproductive.
To make the self-sabotage even more apparent, Colossal works on elephant conservation [colossal.com]. They're not even suggesting that de-extinction can absolve humanity of addressing the current crisis.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Friday March 14, @02:16AM (2 children)
Keep in mind that 1) people are extremely poor where effective conservation isn't happening - developed world has figured this out, and 2) a blanket sacrificing of human interests creates high fertility poor people which in turn sacrifices ecological goals. Human interests need to be satisfied to some degree if you want those ecological interests to be satisfied as well. I think it can be summarized as: big dog eats first.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday March 14, @02:39AM (1 child)
Time to educate more women?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 14, @02:55AM