Technologies

What De-Extinction Means for the Living World

With much controversy swirling around Colossal’s proxy dire wolves, we spoke with the company’s CEO to find out how these animals were created and what so-called de-extinction technology could mean for endangered species.

Some people will tell you that the dire wolves are back, while others will tell you they are not. Colossal Biosciences kicked off an avalanche of media coverage, including both hype and harsh criticism, when the company said it brought back dire wolves, an extinct species given renewed popularity by its role in the Game of Thrones franchise, using gene-editing and cloning technology.

We will discuss the details of what Colossal has accomplished, but this technology also raises a bigger question with wider-reaching implications: What does de-extinction mean for the living world and endangered species fighting for survival?

Proxy dire wolves

Three animals — two males named Romulus and Remus and a female named Khaleesi — are at the center of the controversy.

Colossal created the wolf pups by taking DNA from an existing species, the gray wolf, and making 20 edits to 14 genes designed to produce traits associated with the dire wolf: size, the color of their coats and more. The embryos were implanted into large dogs and reportedly delivered by a planned cesarean section.

Much of the debate around this issue has centered on whether gene-edited gray wolves can be accurately called «dire wolves» and if their creation can truly be considered «de-extinction.»

«It’s never gonna be possible to bring something back that’s genetically identical to a species that used to be around, and also a species is more than just its DNA,» said Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s chief science officer. «It’s the DNA interacting with the ecosystem, which also isn’t present.»

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature defines de-extinction as «the process of creating an organism that resembles an extinct species,» with the critical caveat that the term itself is misleading. Thinking of de-extinct versions of animals as a proxy for the original animals, rather than a faithful reproduction, adds some clarity to the conversation.

How Colossal’s de-extinction works

To understand how it works, look at the first gene-edited species Colossal announced: woolly mice. This demonstrates the company’s ability to make several gene edits at once.

«It’s the same genes that evolved in elephants and evolved in mice, but it was variants in those genes we know are compatible with a healthy mouse,» Shapiro said.

Colossal has produced about 38 woolly mice, and more are on the way. The mice are also reproducing.

Colossal seeks to answer some of the questions with its wooly mice include whether the edits will affect the mice’s ability to thrive in colder climates and the long-term effects of CRISPR gene editing at multiple sites in the animal’s genome.

Animal welfare

Colossal says it prioritizes the creation of healthy animals over things like editing the maximum number of genes or adding in genes exactly as they existed in extinct species. «Every edit carries some risk,» Shapiro said. «We did AI modeling of 3D protein folding, turning genes up and down slightly rather than changing them in some dramatic way.»

Even with precautions, Shapiro acknowledged things don’t always go according to plan. Khaleesi, Colossal’s female proxy dire wolf, had a sister who died at about day 10 due to an infection. «It was confirmed not to be a result of our editing,» Shapiro said.

Endangered species

Along with the proxy dire wolves, Colossal says it has cloned four endangered red wolves. The US Fish & Wildlife Service has estimated that fewer than 20 red wolves are left in the wild and about 270 are in captivity.

Colossal’s red wolf clones were made using genes from what the company is calling «ghost wolves,» a population of what were believed to be coyotes living in western Louisiana and eastern Texas that were revealed to have a significant portion of red wolf DNA.

Colossal CEO Ben Lamm says the clones «increased genetic diversity of the captive breeding pool by up to 25%.»

Lamm also highlighted the company’s pledge to make much of its de-extinction technologies available for free, including genetic rescue (adding genetic diversity to small at-risk populations), biobanking (preservation of biological samples) and cryo-freezing (cold storage of biological samples).

What’s next?

Questions and concerns still loom, many of which have been laid out by the IUCN, the same organization that provided Colossal’s working definition of de-extinction and acknowledged it as misleading.

Among the potential disadvantages to de-extinction raised by the IUCN is a possible decrease in support for preventing extinctions. If the public misbelieves that extinction is reversible due to the popularity of de-extinction in the news, could that promote apathy about ongoing conservation efforts?

Risk to animals, including those created by gene-editing and cloning, surrogate animals and any potential future offspring or hybrid species (even re-extinction), is also a concern.

Then there are the challenges of potential rewilding, its effects on the ecosystem, the potential for invasiveness of proxy species in their new environment and the risk of disease.

This brings us back to where we began, with the trio of proxy dire wolves who will live out their lives on a 2,000-acre preserve in an undisclosed location.

Check out the video in this article to see Colossal’s proxy dire wolves in action and hear our interviews with the company’s CEO and chief science officer.

Technologies

Apple and Meta Hit With EU Fines, Ordered to Improve Consumer Choice

The European Commission has demanded that the two tech companies give people more scope to decide how their data is used and better access to deals.

The EU’s crackdown on Big Tech began in earnest on Wednesday, as the European Commission issued the first fines under the Digital Markets Act, a piece of regulation designed to keep major players in the technology world from abusing their dominant position in the industry.

Apple’s fine, the bigger of the two, totals 500 million euros ($570 million), and follows an investigation into whether the company has been preventing customers from viewing and accessing offers that could save them money — cheaper streaming subscriptions, for instance — if they paid outside of its App Store ecosystem. The European Commission found that Apple prevents app developers from informing people about cheaper ways to pay, and has ordered the company to change this practice.

Meta, meanwhile, has received a fine of 200 million euros ($228 million), due to the fact it provides people in Europe with a binary choice to either use Meta’s platforms — including Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — for free and accept the company will combine your data across services, or pay a premium to ensure an ad-free experience in which your data is kept separate.

Since the European Commission initially told Meta this model did not comply with the DMA, the company introduced new practices that provide people with more choice over how their data is used. But the company has still received a fine for its previous model.

Silicon Valley and the EU have long had a fractious relationship. Almost 10 years ago, Apple CEO Tim Cook dismissed a massive EU tax bill as «political crap.» But with geopolitical tensions between Europe and the US at a high right now, the fines are more divisive than ever. It’s often tricky to see how the high-level regulatory decisions affect the tech industry, but you only need to look at Apple dropping the lighting port on the iPhone in favor of USB-C charging to understand the power of the EU to sway the behavior of tech companies.

The aim of the Digital Markets Act is twofold. It gives up-and-coming tech companies an opportunity to prove themselves in an industry dominated by the world’s wealthiest companies. It’s also designed to ensure tech users across Europe (and sometimes further afield) have access to the best services and deals, plus the ability to decide for themselves how to spend their money and how their data is used. The European Commission does have the power to fine companies up to 10% of their annual global revenue under this regulation, but these fines fall below this threshold in an effort to be proportionate with the specific violations of the law.

«Enabling free business and consumer choice is at the core of the rules laid down in the Digital Markets Act,» Henna Virkkunen, executive vice president for technological sovereignty at the European Commission, said in a statement Tuesday. «This includes ensuring that citizens have full control over when and how their data is used online, and businesses can freely communicate with their own customers. The decisions adopted today find that both Apple and Meta have taken away this free choice from their users and are required to change their behaviour.»

But to the Silicon Valley tech giants, the EU’s approach can often seem unnecessarily punitive, in some cases forcing them to make changes that they argue are actually worse for users. In a statement issued on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Apple accused the European Commission of moving the goalposts, and said the company planned to appeal the decision.

«Today’s announcements are yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple in a series of decisions that are bad for the privacy and security of our users, bad for products, and force us to give away our technology for free,» the company’s spokesperson said. «We have spent hundreds of thousands of engineering hours and made dozens of changes to comply with this law, none of which our users have asked for.»

Meanwhile, Meta’s chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan said the European Commission was «attempting to handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards.» He added, «This isn’t just about a fine. The Commission forcing us to change our business model effectively imposes a multi-billion-dollar tariff on Meta while requiring us to offer an inferior service. And by unfairly restricting personalized advertising the European Commission is also hurting European businesses and economies.»

It’s likely that Meta, feeling aggrieved over being penalized even after making multiple changes to its business model, will also appeal the fine. The company remains adamant there’s nothing in the Digital Markets Act to justify the changes the European Commission is asking it to make.

Technologies

Samsung Resumes One UI 7 Release After Bug Delayed Rollout

A glitch that locked Galaxy S24 owners out of their phones forced Samsung to hit pause on the update.

Samsung has resumed the rollout of its AI-driven One UI interface after a bug left some people unable to unlock their phones earlier this month.

The company confirmed to CNET that it restarted the software push, but declined to provide further details about the original issue.

The glitch appeared to originate from Samsung Galaxy S24 models that had received the update in South Korea. People who upgraded to One UI 7 (based on Android 15) reported recurring issues with unlocking their devices. Samsung temporarily halted the update across all Galaxy models and regions, likely as a precaution. At the time, the company told CNET it was revisiting the rollout schedule to «ensure the best possible experience.»

Samsung made the One UI 7 update available to Galaxy phones and tablets on April 7, starting with the Galaxy S24 series, Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Z Flip 6.

One UI 7 features a redesigned interface centered around AI, offering enhanced personalization and control. The software uses artificial intelligence to help edit videos, compose messages and suggest places to eat.

The move comes as tech companies continue to race to embed AI features into smartphones, transforming them into smarter everyday companions capable of handling more complex tasks.

Technologies

Galaxy Users Can Grab This Samsung SmartTag 2 for a Record-Low $16

It’s got an IP67 waterproof rating, a battery life of over 500 days and you can pick it up for $14 off the usual price at Amazon.

Few things can throw off your day as easily as losing track of your keys or bag. Fortunately, it’s easy to track them down with the help of a Bluetooth tracker, and right now you can grab one at a record-low price. Amazon has just knocked the Samsung Galaxy SmartTag 2 down to just $16, which saves you $14 compared to the usual price. Though this deal only applies to the white color variant. There’s also no telling how long this offer will last, so you may want to get your order in sooner rather than later.

Hey, did you know? CNET Deals texts are free, easy and save you money.

Samsung designed the Smart Tag 2 to stay charged for up to 500 days, and it can last up to 40% longer when set to power-saving mode. It has a convenient integrated loop for attaching the item you want to track, and its IP67 waterproof rating means you don’t have to worry about the tracker possibly malfunctioning even when the weather isn’t ideal. All you have to do is register your tag to track your precious items from your Samsung Galaxy smartphone or tablet. The SmartTag 2 must be synced to Samsung SmartThings, and you can use it with any compatible Galaxy device.

Why this deal matters

A single Samsung Galaxy Smart Tag 2 typically costs $30, but this deal brings it down to just $16, saving you $14. It’s important to note that these tags can be tracked only with a compatible Samsung Galaxy phone or tablet. If that works for you, we think this is a worthwhile deal that could save you money in the long run. Amazon also has a four-pack of these same tags for only $72, which saves you $28, but at this current price, you’re better off buying four of them individually.