Critics of Colossal Bioscience’s “de-extinction” efforts get targeted by lawsuits and smears

I’ve written extensively about Colossal Bioscience’s efforts to bring back extinct animals, “de-extincting” species like the dire wolf, the woolly mammoth, and the dodo (see here for some posts). And I’ve been pretty critical of their efforts, arguing that they are not producing genuine extinct species but modern species that have been genetically tweaked to have some superficial resemblance to modern species. Besides that, which I consider pretty misleading to the public, Colossal has wavered in its claims, going back and forth between saying that they are/are not producing extinct species.  For my taste there’s just too much hype, too much rancor, too much waffling, and too much capitalism.

There have been other scientific critics, too, including mammoth expert Tori Herridge, a paleontologist at Sheffield (she turned down an offer to join Colossal’s advisory board), and, as the EMBO article below reports, “Vincent Lynch, an evolutionary developmental biologist at the University at Buffalo, who studies elephant embryos; Flint Dibble, a zooarcheaologist at Cardiff University, who runs a podcast called “Archaeology with Flint Dibble”, and Nick Rawlence, “a paleogeneticist at the University of Otago in New Zealand.”

As the EMBO Reports article below describes (click to read for free), these critics of Colossal have been subject to “Dark PR tactics”:  they’ve been smeared in various obscure publications by anonymous writers, or writers who won’t answer emails, attacked in articles that later disappear, and even threatened with lawsuits for using Colossal material, like videos, which were apparently employed with “fair usage”.

But it doesn’t look as if these threats come from Colossal; in fact, the evidence is against it.

The authors of of the EMBO piece are identified this way: “Howard Wolinsky is a freelance journalist based in Chicago, USA. Holger Breithaupt is an editor at EMBO reports. Yehu Moran is Professor of Ecology and Evolution at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an academic editor at EMBO Press.”)

A few descriptions of the attacks on Colossal’s critics:

Herridge, Lynch and Rawlence have been targets of smear articles and blog posts that questioned their credentials, professional integrity and intentions. Lynch and Dibble have been targets of digital copyright infringement claims. Lynch said he was accused of violating copyright on X and his account was permanently suspended. Dibble had to fight similar charges for what he described as fair use of videos from Colossal and the popular Joe Rogan Experience podcast. He said the aim was to shut down his YouTube podcast, but he won appeals.

Herridge, who said she was offered a seat on Colossal’s science advisory board but declined, was featured on Feb. 7 in an article in BusinessMole, an online website covering small business: “The Controversy Surrounding Tori Herridge: Are Her Scientific Critiques Dangerously Unqualified?” This article had the byline and photo of Samuel Allcock, the founder of PR Fire, a UK-based PR company. Laura Johnson, Managing Director of PR Fire, stated that Allcock had left the company in 2024. Allcock did not respond to email inquiries, nor did BusinessMole.

. . . . On March 31, an anonymous hit piece about Herridge appeared in an online news site, The Signal, covering California’s Santa Clarita Valley, under the headline “TrowelBlazers and the Cult of Visibility: A Critical Look at the Intersection of Science, Media and Branding”. TrowelBlazers is a project of Herridge and three other scientists to honor “the contributions of women in the ‘digging’ sciences: archaeology, geology, and paleontology, and to outreach activities aimed at encouraging participation, especially from under-represented minorities”. The article, which has now been taken down, stated that the story was paid for by an advertiser. The Signal did not respond to inquiries about this article. TechTock also attacked Herridge on its YouTube channel; @MrTechTok could not be reached for comment.

. . . Throughout the summer, a series of articles questioned Lynch’s credentials and integrity and claimed he is a misogynist, which he said he found especially offensive. On March 7, A Typical Work Day, a website aimed at business people, ran an anonymous piece “Vincent Lynch’s Failures in Genetic Research Cast Serious Doubts on His Authority in the De-Extinction Debate.” It has been taken down. On June 2, GreenMatters ran “Questioning Credibility: Lynch’s Stem Cell Shortcomings”. GreenMatters did not respond to a query. On June 6, Lynch was again smeared in an anonymous piece in CEO Today Magazine entitled: Vincent Lynch’s Repeated Failures in Stem Cell Research.”

On July 3, The Daily Blaze ran a piece questioning Lynch’s credentials entitled “Everything You Need To Know About Vincent Lynch, Evolutionary Biologist”, and the USA Daily Chronicles ran a piece claiming Lynch is a misogynist. Both have been taken down after EMBO reports made inquiries. Both websites are part of the Price of Business Digital Network run by Kevin Price and Gigi Price under the name Coco Media, LLC, which also includes The Price of Business syndicated radio show.

There’s a lot more in the article.

Indeed, some of the language from the different smear sites has been similar, leading people to think that the smear were generated by chatbots.

While these articles and blog posts have appeared in different media—often websites catering to specific topics that have little or nothing to do with science, evolution, or conservation—they all share commonalities, such as similar introductions, trying to discredit the targeted scientists’ expertise, or question their neutrality or integrity, and seem to be generated by chatbots. A semantic analysis of the articles about Herridge and Lynch shows considerable similarities in particular for those targeting Lynch, suggesting that these may have come from the same source (Fig. 1). While the two earlier articles against Herridge have a byline—Sam Allcock and an external advertising source—most of the later articles against Lynch are all anonymous; the html code of the CEO Today article lists Jacob Mallinder, their head of digital marketing, as an author. The site did not respond to queries about the possible role of Mallinder and blocked the sender’s email address after the first attempt to contact them.

For several reasons, I don’t think Colossal is involved in this at all. First, they flatly deny it. I have to give credit to Colossal’s George Church for his denial:

Church speculated that Colossal fans might be behind the anonymous smear articles, which he called “a tempest in a teapot”. “Maybe they’re trying to ‘help’ in some misguided way. If ‘fans’ want to engage in the conversation, ideally, they would use their real names (as Ben, Beth, and I do) and avoid ad hominem comments”, he said. “These folks questioning expertise and credentials, ironically, have zero credentials themselves (due to anonymity), and their editors are not showing strong responsibility.”

Further, the articles appear in journals or magazines with minimal readership. If Colossal wanted to attack its critics, it would do so on its site, on YouTube, or in big-name places.  But they haven’t done so, save for a few comments and videos by chief scientist Beth Shapiro, using her own name.

Third, the articles are often anonymous, and when they’re not, attempts to contact the author or the publication either show that the author doesn’t exist or doesn’t respond.

Finally, the articles have often been taken down after EMBO contacts the journal/magazine.

All of this suggests that Church is right: these are, as Matthew (another critic) speculated, “Colossal fanbois.”  Matthew and I are just happy that the fanbois didn’t go after us.  I did write a Boston Globe op-ed critical of de-extinction in addition to quite a few pieces n this website, and Matthew has been critical of it in his books.  But as critical as I am of Colossal, I have to give them credit for responding openly and publicly, even if I find their responses inadequate.

My only question is this: why would somebody be so keen on de-extinction that they try to ruin the reputation of scientists who criticize it?  I can understand cancellation campaigns based on ideological differences, but bringing back the wooly mammoth? These anonymous and cowardly cancellers are either marinated in Jurassic Park, or have too much time on their hands.  Either way, they are not engaging in the give-and-take that occurs in real scientific criticism, including our criticisms of Colossal and their responses.  Instead, they attack people rather than ideas. The Colossal fanbois are good at only one thing: discomfiting critics by using ad hominem arguments.