Critics of de-extinction research hit by mystery smear campaign

Academics who have questioned the validity of efforts to “de-extinct” animals like the woolly mammoth and the dire wolf have complained of an apparent campaign to discredit them. They believe the attacks are intended to deter criticism of de-extinction projects, a controversial research area attracting considerable attention from the media and investors.

Biotech company Colossal Biosciences has, over several years, announced efforts to recreate animals including the woolly mammoth, thylacine, dire wolf and giant moa bird. All these are extinct, but the company aims to modify the genomes of related creatures still living today to bring them back. Many scientists have said this can only lead to animals with partially modified genomes, not true recreations.

Vincent Lynch at the University at Buffalo, New York, Flint Dibble at Cardiff University, UK, Victoria Herridge at the University of Sheffield, UK, and Nic Rawlence at the University of Otago in New Zealand have all publicly criticised Colossal’s efforts, and now say that they have seen blog posts and YouTube videos attacking their expertise and credentials posted online. Some have also received frivolous copyright notices demanding they remove their own content.

“Tori Herridge has become a controversial figure in modern science discourse, with many arguing that her lack of qualifications in crucial fields renders her critiques both uninformed and harmful,” reads one article, published on BusinessMole, a business news site.

While none of the academics have any evidence of who is behind the campaign, most of the content specifically mentions their comments on Colossal and shares similar phrasing and content. Tests for AI-generated content run by New Scientist suggest many of the articles were created by chatbots.

Colossal says it has no involvement in these articles. “The de-extinction work that we do is controversial to some and we have a handful of very vocal critics. Neither Colossal, nor any of its investors, are involved in commissioning negative stories about critics,” Ben Lamm, chief executive of Colossal, said in a statement to New Scientist.

Lynch, a tenured researcher in evolutionary developmental biology, has noticed several critical blog posts, including one on the business news site CEO Today by an unnamed author, which claims some aspects of his research have been unsuccessful and this “undermines his credibility in the de-extinction debate”.

Jacob Mallinder at Universal Media, which publishes CEO Today, told New Scientist the story was written by a freelancer and passed on their contact details, but they didn’t respond to a request for comment. Mallinder didn’t respond to questions about the motivation for running the piece and whether it was paid for by a sponsor.

Similar posts about Lynch have appeared on Green Matters, APN News and The Daily Blaze, all written anonymously. These websites didn’t respond to New Scientist’s request for comment.

Lynch, who has criticised Colossal profusely on X, also showed New Scientist a letter from Colossal’s lawyers warning of legal action if he didn’t stop his “increasingly hostile and now defamatory attacks” on Lamm and the company itself. Lamm confirmed that Colossal’s lawyers did send this letter, but declined to give details of the comments it referred to.

Lynch says his comments have only constituted fair and open scepticism, and that criticism should be encouraged. “It’s the whole basis of the scientific method. We’re supposed to be super critical about everything,” he says.

He believes the efforts are designed to stifle criticism or stop news organisations seeking comment from him about de-extinction stories in the future. “I have really thick skin. No one can fire me,” says Lynch. “But if this was happening to an assistant professor who didn’t have the protections of tenure yet, I think they should be worried because there’s negative press about them and that might influence their career trajectory.”

Dibble is an archaeologist who also hosts a YouTube channel that promotes clear communication of science, and wanted to explore the idea of de-extinction. He invited Beth Shapiro, chief scientific officer of Colossal Biosciences, and Lynch to take part in a video. Shapiro didn’t respond, and a video featuring Lynch was published in June.

After it went live, Dibble says he was contacted by a company called HT Mobile Solutions demanding that sections of the video be removed because of a copyright violation, but these were just clips of him and Lynch talking.

Dibble says he doesn’t know what prompted the takedown request, but that it was eventually dropped following his protestations and the video remains online. HT Mobile Solutions didn’t respond to a request for comment by New Scientist.

He agrees that there is a campaign to stifle criticism, which he says won’t work. “If anything, I’ll just make more content on it to show how frivolous this kind of stuff is and how petty it is,” he says.

Lynch also says he receives several copyright claims a week on images he has posted to X, and last week, his account on X was suspended. He says this was for reported copyright violations for his own images or images in the public domain.

No one from Colossal has requested any copyright takedowns, said Lamm. “We fundamentally believe in free speech and believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion – even if it is not shared by the vast majority.”

Herridge, a palaeontologist, has also seen two negative blog posts about her published recently, including the one on BusinessMole, which was headlined “Are her scientific critiques dangerously unqualified?” In truth, Herridge has a PhD in evolutionary biology and is a presenter of science programmes on radio and television. But that post goes on to say that “critics of Herridge caution that her lack of expertise in key areas undermines the credibility of her arguments”.

The post doesn’t identify any of those critics or point to any document that casts Herridge’s credentials into question. It was removed after New Scientist contacted the publication for comment, and received no reply, but it remains available on the Internet Archive, which preserves digital content for posterity. A similarly critical video has also been put on YouTube by TechTok, a technology and science news channel.

Herridge says she considers the posts to be “an unfair and unfounded attempt to undermine my credibility” since speaking out about de-extinction. “I cannot prove who is behind them… but I will say that it is hugely disappointing to see such tactics employed. Seeking to silence critics, rather than answering the criticisms themselves, is the antithesis of good science,” she says.

Rawlence says he noticed two “anonymous hit pieces” appear after he made critical statements on Colossal. One, published on the Florida-based news site Space Coast Daily, asks whether Rawlence’s commentary on Colossal “reflects genuine scientific concern or a calculated effort to stay in the spotlight”. Another published by the Inter Press Service news agency accuses him of “intellectual inconsistency” because his field relies on the same techniques that Colossal makes use of.

Rawlence says his criticism of Colossal is simply that its claim of being able to “de-extinct” creatures isn’t justified by altering existing animals so that they merely share some of their traits. “I think the aim of these posts is to discredit the scientists providing critical commentary,” says Rawlence. “I tend to think it’s showing that we’re actually doing our job as critics and conscience of society. I suspect there probably a whole lot of people that are afraid to speak up.”

Andrew Chadwick at Loughborough University, UK, who researches online disinformation, says that open discourse is more important than ever. “In today’s media environment, with so much noise and competition for attention, I think it’s incredibly important that qualified, practising scientists should feel free to express informed opinions about their particular fields of expertise,” he says. “This is particularly crucial in highly competitive, controversial fields where much is at stake.”

In his statement, Lamm reiterated Colossal’s take on all this. “Colossal is focused on bringing back extinct species and developing tools for conservation all while working to instil a sense of excitement and wonder in kids of all ages for science. Our goal is to inspire scientists, not tear scientists down,” he said.