Fact check: Is the "revived" direwolf actually a direwolf?

1. Summary of the results

The "revived" direwolves are definitively not true dire wolves, but rather genetically modified gray wolves. Multiple independent experts have confirmed this conclusion:

• The animals were created by modifying gray wolf cells using DNA from ancient dire wolf remains (13,000-year-old tooth and 72,000-year-old skull) ^[1]
• Only 20 SNPs out of 2.5 billion base pairs were modified, which is described as a "minuscule change in evolutionary terms" ^{[2] [3]}
• Paleoecologist Jacquelyn Gill explicitly states "This is a designer dog. This is a genetically modified gray wolf." ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual points are missing from the original question:

• The ancient dire wolf DNA is too degraded to allow for direct cloning, necessitating the use of synthetic biology ^[5]
• The modified wolves were created using domestic dog surrogates ^[6]
• The more relevant question, according to Ronald Sandler from Northeastern University, is how this biotechnology might advance conservation efforts for existing species, rather than whether these are "true" dire wolves ^[7]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

There are several potential sources of misleading information:

• Commercial interests: Colossal Biosciences benefits from promoting these as "revived" dire wolves ^{[1] [8]}, despite experts consistently describing them as merely modified gray wolves with superficial similarities
• Scientific reality vs. Public perception: The term "revived" is misleading, as these animals:
• Only look "superficially" like dire wolves ^[1]
• Are essentially "gray wolves with a few cosmetic tweaks" ^[2]
• Do not provide meaningful understanding of dire wolves beyond appearance ^[4]
• Feature white fur but are fundamentally still gray wolves ^[3]