Julian Dorey Podcast #297: “Dire Wolf Creators on Resurrecting Woolly Mammoth, Jurassic Park & Playing GOD” | Colossal
Released: April 29, 2025

Episode Overview

Julian Dorey welcomes Ben Lamm (CEO/Co-Founder, Colossal) and Matt (Chief Animal Officer, Colossal), pioneers in the field of “de-extinction,” to discuss Colossal Biosciences' work on resurrecting extinct species—the dire wolf, woolly mammoth, and beyond. The conversation dives into genetics, conservation, the ethical challenges of "playing God," practical impacts on biodiversity, and the company’s ambitious business model. They address criticisms from traditional conservationists, detail their scientific breakthroughs, and reflect candidly on the uneasy convergence of innovation, ecology, and media hype.

Table of Contents

1. The Mission & Motivation Behind Colossal
2. Conservation vs. De-Extinction: A Symbiotic Relationship
3. Why Start with the Woolly Mammoth?
4. Technical & Ethical Challenges: From CRISPR to Rewilding
5. Dire Wolves: Science, Semantics, & Media Hype
6. Genetic Rescue, GMOs, and the Future of Conservation
7. Business, Funding, and Technological Spin-Offs
8. Debate: Is De-Extinction a Distraction?
9. Rewilding & Community Engagement
10. Memorable Quotes & Key Moments

<a name="mission"></a>

1. The Mission & Motivation Behind Colossal

• Colossal is the world's first de-extinction and species preservation company (03:19)—focused both on resurrecting extinct species and on direct interventions for currently endangered species.
• Ben Lamm stresses that although media and public attention gravitates toward “bringing back the mammoth” or “creating dire wolves,” their core mission is as much about conservation as it is about spectacle (03:46).
• Shocking statistics about biodiversity loss: Prediction of 50% of all biodiversity lost by 2050 (00:06, 03:46)—up from 15% when the company started.
• The company purposely hires top scientists and conservation experts, realizing they aren’t “just nerds in a lab,” but need broad, practical expertise (03:33; 61:58).

<a name="conservation"></a>

2. Conservation vs. De-Extinction: A Symbiotic Relationship

• The research and tech developed for de-extinction projects are immediately applied to conservation—for instance, open-sourcing tech and data for use by other scientists (05:55; 14:23).
• "De-extinction and conservation are intrinsically linked. You cannot undo that they are together." – Matt (14:23)
• Example: Their work developing a vaccine for EEHV (Elephant Endotheliotropic Herpes Virus) helps both extinction projects and today’s endangered elephants (12:01–13:40).
• Colossal founded a $50 million Foundation devoted entirely to open innovation in conservation tech (15:09; 16:04).

<a name="mammoth"></a>

3. Why Start with the Woolly Mammoth?

• The woolly mammoth serves as a “charismatic megafauna” to excite the public and drive conservation interest—and because founder George Church had already spent years on mammoth DNA (07:33).
• It's an extremely tough technical challenge: gene editing, reproductive tech, working with elephants (the mammoths' closest living relative), whose reproduction is difficult and poorly understood (10:32–11:00).
• Notably, some commonly cited facts about mammoths are corrected (e.g., they've only been extinct for about 4,000 years, not 14,000 as often claimed) (06:33).

<a name="challenges"></a>

4. Technical & Ethical Challenges: From CRISPR to Rewilding

• Detailed discussion of CRISPR, multiplex genome editing (ability to edit numerous genes at once), identifying which genes actually define a species (33:47, 79:17).
• Serious limitations highlighted around “cloning” extinct animals: With no viable cells, resurrection means engineering a living relative’s genome, not true recreation (84:16, 99:32).
• Open acknowledgment of risks, unintended consequences, and ongoing questions of ethics. Colossal actively seeks out their critics (“the people who have thought about all the bad”) to advise and challenge them (61:58–67:00).
• "Do you ever sit up at night and wonder if you're playing God here?" — Julian
  "We play God every single day… We're eradicating species, why not use this technology to inspire the next generation and help save what's left?" — Ben Lamm (107:55–108:57)

<a name="direwolves"></a>

5. Dire Wolves: Science, Semantics, & Media Hype

• Colossal recently made global headlines for engineering a "dire wolf" via 14 genes and 20 edits introduced into gray wolves, after deeply sequencing ancient dire wolf DNA (84:26–104:16).
• The science is both real and nuanced: They are clear these are engineered proxies, not 100% identical clones. The public and media often run with oversimplified headlines (“We made dire wolves!”) (93:36–94:33).
• "There are 31 ways to define a species... what we did was identify and engineer the core traits that set dire wolves apart." — Ben (85:03–88:01)
• Animal welfare prioritized over genetic “purity”—some dire wolf genes were swapped for analogous traits shown to be safer for the animal (104:16).

<a name="genetics"></a>

6. Genetic Rescue, GMOs, and the Future of Conservation

• Use of genetic and computational tools to both resurrect extinct animals and increase genetic diversity in current endangered species (“genetic rescue”; see examples with the Northern White Rhino, Red Wolf, and Northern Quoll) (24:34–35:24).
• Open source sequencing data and tools—enabling “acceleration” of conservation research for others (30:16).
• Defends modern GMO use as a potentially powerful conservation instrument, moving past earlier public fears (35:24–36:24).
• “We're not just out here making super animals. You need a new tool in the toolbox—to actually address the genetic bottleneck in these tiny populations.” — Matt (24:34–26:59)

<a name="business"></a>

7. Business, Funding, and Technological Spin-Offs

• Colossal’s business model is multi-pronged:
  • Spin-outs of biotech and synthetic biology companies (e.g., computational biology for drug discovery, “Breaking.com” plastics-eating microbe) (38:25).
  • Development of carbon and biodiversity credit markets: By reintroducing keystone species, they hope to offer quantifiable "eco-services" (41:33–47:16).
  • Much of their conservation work is open access, but the platform tech and IP are monetized (39:54).
• Transparency about fundraising: $435 million for the main business, $50 million for the Foundation, nearly all from tech/philanthropy, not from money destined for traditional conservation NGOs (118:55).

<a name="debate"></a>

8. Debate: Is De-Extinction a Distraction?

• Addressing critics such as Paul Rosolie, who say the hype counts as “sci-fi clickbait” distracting from traditional conservation (115:45).
• Lamm & Matt argue:
  • They bring new money and massive attention to conservation.
  • Their tech is already helping living species (e.g., elephant disease vaccine, Red Wolf awareness, genetic rescue projects).
  • The “zero sum” argument is misleading; Colossal is a research and development arm, not a replacement (117:01–120:54).
• "Informed critics? We love 'em. We can learn a lot. Sometimes we're totally wrong, and we're cool with that." — Ben (120:21)
• "This is such an existential problem we need a tapestry of approaches." — Ben (122:53)

<a name="rewilding"></a>

9. Rewilding & Community Engagement

• Rewilding is not a “let’s just set them loose” plan. Dire wolves, for example, are to remain at a 2,000-acre preserve, not released into the wild (132:24).
• For “classic” de-extinction species (mammoth, thylacine/Tasmanian tiger, dodo), re-introduction is years away. It already involves stakeholder engagement: indigenous groups, government, tourism, logging interests, and even child education (133:44–137:05).
• Proactive community input: advisory committees, “please give us feedback” forms, child-friendly educational materials at local governments’ request (133:46).
• Explicit understanding of the behavioral/cultural and ecological challenges of reintroduction, not just the genetic ones (126:45–130:08).

<a name="quotes"></a>

10. Memorable Quotes & Key Moments

On Playing God and Responsibility

• “I think we play God... when we burn down the forest, when we overfish, when we eradicate species. The question is, why not use that power also to fix things?” — Ben (108:02)
• “You better have people on your team that feel that weight and responsibility.” — Matt (109:22)

On Conservation vs. De-Extinction

• “De-extinction and conservation are intrinsically linked… The research and development that goes into de-extinction is directly applicable to conservation of currently imperiled species.” — Matt (14:23)
• “We’re actually the de-extinction company saying: You don’t need just us; we need the conservation community. We’re one thread in a tapestry.” — Ben (117:11, 122:53)

On Hype vs. Reality

• "People have a right to do whatever they want... at least our job is to keep advancing the science, advance conservation, and keep the conversation going—even if it's controversial.” — Ben (76:12)
• “Sometimes it’s okay to be a little more general, because we need to bring more audience to the table.” — Matt (94:58)

On Business Model

• “It was very Apollo Program–esque: you build technology to get to the moon, but build a lot of other cool stuff along the way that helps the world.” — Ben (39:54)
• “If we can make $50 million a year and just give it to elephant conservation, that could completely change everything.” — Ben (63:53)

On Technology & Caution

• “We did what we did with dire wolves very carefully. Animal welfare is more important than ‘purity.’” — Matt (101:13)
• “We took the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s point-by-point guidelines and designed our project around them. We’re writing up a draft to show the world exactly how.” — Matt (102:16)

On Engaging Critics

• "You want the people at the top of their field that have challenged this for years, because that means they've thought about it for years." — Ben (61:58)
• “We love informed critics. You learn a lot... and sometimes that 5% we’re wrong on—great, we’ll fix it.” — Ben (120:21)

Key Timestamps

• 00:06 – Biodiversity crisis: 50% at risk by 2050
• 03:19 – Colossal’s founding: De-extinction and species preservation
• 12:01 – Elephant herpes virus, vaccine development
• 14:23 – De-extinction science directly boosts conservation
• 24:34 – Genetic bottlenecks, ex situ conservation
• 33:47 – Discovery: One gene gives marsupials cane toad toxin resistance
• 39:54 – Technology spin-offs and the Apollo Program analogy
• 41:33 – Carbon credits, biodiversity credits explained
• 85:03 – Dire wolf: Morphological vs. genetic species arguments
• 93:36 – Media and semantics: oversimplification of science
• 104:16 – Animal welfare vs. purity in designing dire wolf proxies
• 107:55 – “Playing God” question addressed
• 115:45 – Paul Rosolie’s critique addressed in depth
• 126:45 – Evolution, learned behavior, and functional proxies
• 132:24 – Rewilding plans: practical, patient, collaborative

Conclusion

This deeply engaging conversation demystifies the science and ambition that goes into de-extinction, giving equal weight to caution, community, and the realities of how new technology actually enters the messy real world. Colossal’s founders are animated by both vision and humility—a rare combination—actively inviting scrutiny and practical collaboration. Whether or not you agree with the very idea of reviving extinct species, this podcast is essential listening for anyone who cares about the future of conservation, biotechnology, and humanity’s place in the natural world.