Not exactly. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum promoted de-extinction as a possible conservation tool, but the April 2025 reporting behind that headline does not quote him endorsing the deliberate destruction of endangered animals. And the animals recently described as “dire wolves” were gene-edited gray wolves—not cloned dire wolves.
What Doug Burgum actually said
On April 13, 2025, Futurism reported that Burgum argued for removing more species from the Endangered Species List and presented de-extinction technology as a potential conservation strategy. The phrase “it’s okay to destroy” is a rhetorical reading of that position, not a direct quotation showing that he advocated wiping out species.
Burgum wrote that “The Endangered Species List has become like the Hotel California: once a species enters, they never leave.” He also said that “97 percent of species that are added to the endangered list remain there.” That 97 percent figure is Burgum’s claim as reported by Futurism; it should not be treated as an independently verified national statistic without additional evidence.
His broader argument was that conservation policy should change and that de-extinction could be “a bedrock for modern species conservation.” Those are advocacy statements, not evidence that a de-extinction project has restored an endangered population or made habitat protection unnecessary.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
- Used Book in Good Condition
Are Colossal’s “dire wolves” real dire wolves?
The Washington Post reported that Colossal Biosciences produced three pups using gene-editing techniques guided by ancient DNA. The pups were between 3 and 6 months old when the Post published its report. Colossal used DNA from fossils dated to roughly 11,500 to 72,000 years ago to select traits associated with the extinct dire wolf.
Scientists quoted by the Post described the animals more narrowly: genetically edited gray wolves carrying selected features intended to resemble dire wolves. They are not exact genetic copies of an extinct dire-wolf individual, and they were not cloned from a complete, preserved dire-wolf genome.
Nic Rawlence, an associate professor and director of the Palaeogenetics Laboratory at the University of Otago, said extinct creatures cannot be straightforwardly brought back through cloning because their DNA is not preserved well enough. He characterized Colossal’s work as genetic engineering that makes living animals look like extinct ones and said the pups “are not a dire wolf.”
Cloning and gene editing are different technologies
Cloning
Cloning aims to make an animal with the nuclear genome of an existing donor. For an extinct species, that would require usable genetic material from the extinct animal and a suitable reproductive process. The scientists quoted in the reporting say ancient extinct-species DNA is too degraded for this straightforward approach.
Rank #3
Gene editing
Gene editing starts with a living species and changes selected parts of its genome. Ancient DNA can help identify traits to target, but the resulting animal still has the biological background of the living species used as the starting point. In this case, the reported starting point was the gray wolf.
Why three engineered pups do not restore a species
Producing a few animals is very different from establishing a viable wild population. Rawlence said that at least 500 individuals would be needed to provide the genetic diversity required for a population to persist. Three related or similarly engineered pups cannot supply that scale on their own.
- Genetic diversity: A sustainable population needs many breeding animals and enough variation to reduce inbreeding and adapt to disease or environmental change.
- Reproduction: The animals would need to mature, reproduce successfully and pass on useful traits over multiple generations.
- Habitat: There must be sufficiently large, connected habitat with adequate prey, shelter and legal protection.
- Ecological function: Scientists would have to establish whether the animals perform the role attributed to the extinct species rather than merely sharing a similar appearance.
Conventional conservation versus de-extinction
| Question | Protecting a living species | De-extinction proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Biological identity | Preserves an existing species and its remaining genetic lineages. | Engineers a living species to express selected traits associated with an extinct one. |
| Population scale | Works with animals that already exist, though numbers may be dangerously low. | Must build a breeding population from engineered founders; Rawlence cited at least 500 individuals for genetic diversity. |
| Habitat | Can protect habitat already used by the species. | Requires suitable habitat to be available before release; the reporting leaves that question unresolved. |
| Ecological risk | Management focuses on the species’ known biology and interactions. | Researchers would need to assess unexpected behavior, ecological effects and possible hybridization with living populations. |
| Governance | Conservation laws and agencies already address the species, with varying effectiveness. | Ownership, control, liability and legal status of engineered animals remain unsettled issues. |
| Funding | Directs money toward living animals, habitat and threats such as poaching or disease. | Could attract new money, but conservationists warn it could also divert attention and funding from species facing immediate threats. |
Can de-extinction replace habitat protection?
The reporting does not establish that it can. Even a successful laboratory program would not remove the need to protect land, restore food webs, prevent killing and disease, or manage conflict with people. A look-alike animal released into unsuitable habitat would not recreate the lost species’ ecological role.
There are also practical questions that remain open: where engineered animals could legally live, how they would interact with gray wolves and other wildlife, whether hybridization would occur, who would control the animals, and who would be responsible if they caused harm. Those questions apply before any claim of conservation success could be made.
Recommended Free Tools
Quick Recap
Best Value
What the headline gets wrong
- Burgum promoted de-extinction and criticized the way endangered-species listings persist, but the cited report does not quote him approving deliberate destruction.
- Colossal’s reported animals were gene-edited gray wolves designed to resemble dire wolves, not literal dire-wolf clones.
- Ancient DNA can guide edits without providing a complete, clone-ready extinct genome.
- Three pups are a proof-of-concept scale, not a genetically diverse, self-sustaining population.
- De-extinction does not answer the habitat, ecological, legal or funding problems facing living endangered species.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
