Huberman Lab · 2026-10-05
Bringing Extinct Species Back to Life | Dr. Beth Shapiro
This is Wakewire's analysis, based on the recording and the passages quoted here. Tone and candor labels are our read, not a finding about anyone's motive. Our standards
- Source
- Huberman Lab · Episode page
- Released
- 2026-10-05
- We read it
- 2026-10-05
- Recording
- Recording has gaps
- Read confidence
- medium
- Review
- Passed automatic checks
What the episode covered
Shapiro said Colossal uses ancient DNA and genome editing to create animals with extinct traits while also building tools for conservation. The conversation was candid on technical limits, but it also served as a polished case for Colossal's work and did not state whether Colossal had any commercial relationship with the episode. Watch for peer-reviewed data, welfare outcomes, regulatory decisions, and whether conservation uses appear outside the headline extinct-animal projects.
Our summary, written from the transcript. Not the speakers' words.
The episode, in order
01Species definitions
This set up her later argument that a de-extinct animal need not be genetically identical to an extinct individual to be meaningful.
02Ancient DNA and human ancestry
The segment used human ancestry as a concrete example of gene flow across lineages and of how ancient DNA narrows biological questions.
03Why mammoths, dodos, and thylacines
The episode framed charismatic extinct species as both research goals and attention drivers for broader conservation technology.
04Dire wolf engineering
This was the clearest description of what Colossal means by recreating an extinct animal in this case.
05Safety, welfare, and release
The practical question shifts from whether the label is correct to how edited animals are evaluated, housed, and governed.
06Synthetic biology for living species
This is the episode's main bridge from de-extinction spectacle to present-day species preservation.
07Human genetic selection and editing
The conversation extended the ethical frame from animals and ecosystems to future human uses of gene editing.
08Public communication
The episode repeatedly treated public trust and education as necessary conditions for acceptance of the technology.
Sponsors named in this episode
| Sponsor stated | Where, claim and disclosure |
|---|---|
| Not named |
|
| JUV |
|
| Eight Sleep |
|
| AG1 |
|
| Function |
|
No sponsor named doesn't mean no ads. Each row was taken from the ad break as it was read on air. The verbatim passage behind every row is checked against the transcript character for character. Short excerpts appear below.
Roles and stated affiliations
Sponsor or conflict flagged. health_product_ads_in_science_podcast — The recording includes sponsor segments for JUV, Eight Sleep, AG1, and Function inside a science and health podcast, and the host says sponsors are a way to support the podcast. · guest_employer_topic_overlap — The recording states Shapiro is chief scientific officer at Colossal Biosciences, and the discussion repeatedly presents Colossal's projects and public framing.
Wakewire's read of interests
- Dr. Beth Shapiro: The recording states she left UC Santa Cruz and Howard Hughes Medical Institute to become chief scientific officer at Colossal Biosciences, and much of the episode centers on Colossal's de-extinction and conservation projects.
- Andrew Huberman: The recording states the podcast is separate from his Stanford roles, provides zero-cost science information, and includes sponsors.
- Colossal Biosciences: The recording presents Colossal as developing de-extinction, cloning, synthetic biology, and conservation tools, including dire wolves, mammoths, dodos, thylacines, red wolves, and quolls.
- Named sponsors: The recording includes commercial segments for JUV, Eight Sleep, AG1, and Function, with product descriptions and listener offers.
Recording limits
- The transcript appears to have a cut after Huberman says, "It touches on an important theme that".
Claims that need more support
- Shapiro said exciting people with mammoths, dodos and thylacines brings more engagement, enthusiasm and investment, but the episode did not provide figures for that effect.
Claims made on air that the episode itself did not back up.
Questions the conversation didn't reach
- The recording states Shapiro is Colossal's chief scientific officer, but it did not state whether Colossal had any commercial relationship with the episode.
Topics the episode did not address. This does not mean anyone avoided them.
Are you from this show? You can ask for a correction, reply, or ask us to stop coverage on the rights page.
The read
Charitably, Shapiro is arguing that de-extinction is a way to build conservation tools faster and with more public interest. The boring read is that this was a long science explainer with many concrete details about ancient DNA, cloning, gene editing, and animal welfare. The skeptical read is that the episode gives Colossal's case for why headline species matter, but it gives fewer independent benchmarks for success, public governance, and measurable conservation return.
This read assumes: The transcript reflects the episode accurately except for the noted apparent cuts. Colossal's stated projects are central because the recording identifies Shapiro as its chief scientific officer. The main subtext is inferred from the conversation's repeated framing, not from outside information about the company or episode.
Every opinion labeled as one. This is Wakewire's analysis of the recording, not a finding about anyone's motive.
What was said
Species definitions
Shapiro said species categories are human concepts used for particular conversations, and she contrasted biological, genetic, and geographic species concepts.
Ancient DNA and human ancestry
Shapiro described Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA evidence, including interbreeding with anatomically modern humans and the estimate that many people carry 2 to 5% Neanderthal ancestry.
Why mammoths, dodos, and thylacines
Shapiro said target selection depends on technical feasibility, ethical considerations, ecological role, and public impact.
Dire wolf engineering
Shapiro said the dire wolves were made by selecting 20 edits from fossil dire wolf genomes and engineering those changes into gray wolf genomes.
Safety, welfare, and release
Shapiro said Colossal chose safer coat-color edits rather than edits associated with blindness or deafness risk, and she said dire wolves are not planned for rewilding.
Synthetic biology for living species
Shapiro described projects involving red wolves, quolls, black-footed ferrets, and gene drives as examples of conservation uses for the same toolkit.
Human genetic selection and editing
Huberman raised IVF, embryo selection, the Chinese CRISPR babies case, and commercial embryo screening, while Shapiro compared discomfort around human editing with accepted forms of medical intervention.
Public communication
Shapiro described advisory panels, outreach, papers, documentaries, social media, and public talks as part of Colossal's communication strategy.
Our paraphrase, not the speakers' words.
The passages we relied on
"I often get the question of, why are you thinking about bringing extinct species back to life? Why aren't you thinking about helping living species not become extinct? And the answer is we are doing both. It is the same…"
"In keeping with that theme, today's episode does include sponsors."
"I would like to take a quick break and acknowledge one of"
"Today's episode is also brought to us by Eight Sleep. Eight Sleep"
"I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor, AG1."
"I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor, Function."
"Please also check out the sponsors"
Short excerpts, credited to the show, at most 40 words each and 150 per episode. We do not publish transcripts. We link to the episode so you can hear it from the show itself.
What to watch for
- Peer-reviewed papers identify the exact edits, phenotypes, off-target analysis, and health monitoring for the dire wolves and other edited animals. (Next 6 to 24 months.)
- Regulators publish decisions or permit conditions for any release, translocation, or field trial involving edited organisms. (Before any outdoor release or ecosystem trial.)
- Colossal or partners report survival, reproduction, disease resistance, welfare, and ecological impact data for conservation-linked projects such as red wolves, quolls, ferrets, or pink pigeons. (Next 1 to 5 years.)
- Local advisory groups or Indigenous stewards publish their own positions on proposed releases, including disagreements if any. (As species projects move from lab work to habitat planning.)
- Artificial womb work moves from mice or lab demonstrations into published protocols with welfare review and independent replication. (Multi-year.)
Written by Wakewire's system under our editorial standards. Reading is open to everyone. A free account personalizes your brief.