Toronto Zoo met startup bringing back the woolly mammoth

That startup was Colossal Biosciences, a company that describes its mission as “de-extinction”: It wants to resurrect the woolly mammoth, ice age megafauna that last roamed the tundra thousands of years ago, as well as dodos and Tasmanian tigers. The virtual meeting was held “to discuss Colossal’s conservation vision and their interest in zoos,” Gabriela Mastromonaco, the Toronto Zoo’s chief science officer, told the Star.

Colossal has been quietly approaching zoos and safari parks across North America and Europe, according to two major zoo-accrediting associations, as the company chases its goal of putting baby woolly mammoth calves on the ground as soon as 2028.

While the company’s laboratory scientists push forward on genome engineering and stem cell technology, a Colossal executive has told zoo leaders that their “expertise in animal care, animal husbandry and eventually preparation for reintroduction to the wild would be really important.”

That outreach has placed zoos, more familiar to the public as a place for children to spy penguins and for parents to kill an afternoon, at the centre of an urgent debate accelerated by for-profit de-extinction companies — a debate that raises such questions as whether nature should be treated like a financial asset, whether it is ethical to impregnate a living animal with a long-lost species, and what debt humans owe to life forms we helped wipe off the planet. The International Union for Conservation of Nature, the global authority that administers the “Red List” of threatened species, captured the core dilemma in a 2016 position paper: “The discussion around revival of extinct species has shifted from ‘could we?’ to ‘should we?’”

Colossal has forged partnerships with some zoos, but won’t say how many, which ones, or for what projects. The two major zoo associations, however — the U.S.-based Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), and the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), which collectively accredit more than 650 facilities worldwide — have cautioned their members against collaborating with de-extinction efforts, citing the risks of diverting resources and attention from the extinction crisis of animals still alive today. The AZA has warned its members that involving endangered zoo animals with de-extinction research could be illegal.

Toronto Zoo is not one of Colossal’s partners, and appears unlikely to become one. Publicly, the zoo has not acknowledged its interactions with the company. But last month, Mastromonaco — who holds a PhD in reproductive biotechnology, and is often pictured in a lab coat — gave a presentation to the institution’s board about the risks, benefits and looming realization of “synthetic biology.” Mastromonaco said the zoo would take a leadership role in raising awareness of these issues across Canada — a country, she noted, with vast expanses of tundra, the woolly mammoth’s former, and possibly future, habitat.

Privately, Toronto Zoo chief executive officer Dolf DeJong has sharply questioned Colossal’s mission. In a statement to the Star, DeJong decried what he called an “unacceptable and unethical practice.”

“Unlike de-extinction projects bankrolled by tech billionaires, our goal isn’t to create novelty species — it’s to safeguard the future of animals that actually exist today,” he wrote.

Matt James, Colossal’s chief animal officer, says that the company’s mission of restoring extinct species is entwined with its goals of preserving those at risk of disappearing right now — a goal that zoos share, and see as central to their reason for being. While James — who worked in zoos for 15 years, and has said one of the reasons he left is because he was frustrated with their impact on conservation — understands that some zoos are opposed to de-extinction, he believes they are turning down a ticket out of the extinction crisis.

“I would argue that they need to maybe re-evaluate the way that we are approaching conservation, because I think we’ve been losing this conservation fight for more than 100 years. We need new, progressive tools, and we need additional money to make fundamental changes.”

Once the purview of science fiction, the idea of de-extinction has travelled from speculative to plausible in a little over a decade. One measure of confidence is Colossal’s heady valuation: after closing a funding round in January, the company joined the elite league of startups valued at more than $10 billion. Investors have poured $435 million of capital into the company since its 2021 launch, a group of funders that include Silicon Valley venture capitalists behind companies such as Twitter and Tesla, hedge fund billionaires, conservationists and celebrities. Smaller competitors are nipping at its heels.

The concept involves wielding a quarter-century’s worth of Nobel-winning scientific breakthroughs, including the gene-editing tool CRISPR, artificial intelligence, induced pluripotent stem cells and “paleogenomics,” the field that figured out how to piece together ancient genomes from degraded specimens buried in permafrost or stored in museums.

The basic plan is this: first, pinpoint which sections of the reconstructed mammoth genome are responsible for key traits, such as shaggy fur, cold-insulating fat deposits, and its huge, domed skull. Next, edit the genome of the mammoth’s closest living relative, the Asian elephant, to mimic those key sections. Then, create an embryo carrying the engineered genome, and use either an elephant surrogate or make an artificial womb to gestate it.

Scientists argue that “de-extinction” is a misleading term, because even if the process is successful, the final animal won’t be a true replica of a mammoth — genetically, physically, behaviourally. Colossal’s own publicity material refers to “cold-tolerant elephant mammoth hybrids,” while other conservation organizations call them “proxy” species.

Still, success would require huge leaps across many technologies. Some scientists say the company’s recent successes show just how steep the obstacles ahead are.

Earlier this month, Colossal announced it had created a ”woolly mouse,” one genetically engineered to sport shaggy, mammoth-like hair. The company called it a “breakthrough” and “watershed moment.” Geneticists immediately dampened those claims, pointing out that a few gene knockouts in a well-researched laboratory animal are a far cry from the many, still-mysterious changes needed to mimic a mammoth. But some said that Colossal had made important strides in carrying out multiple gene edits quickly and efficiently, progress that is useful for all kinds of applications, including testing other mammoth traits.

As difficult as the laboratory work will be, what comes next might be harder: making the leap from cells in a lab to a living, breathing, healthy animal. This is an area where zoos have experience — and some zoos particularly excel, says Mastromonaco. 

“Zoos are good at a lot of things, and that’s putting babies on the ground, primarily — healthy babies on the ground.”

In 2015, the Toronto Zoo trumpeted a birth notice. Two wood bison calves, a threatened Canadian species, had been born via artificial insemination — one from sperm cryogenically frozen 35 years earlier, in 1980. It was a world record, the zoo said: the longest-stored sperm to result in a successful zoo animal birth. Alongside partners at the University of Saskatchewan, the zoo has experimented with other assisted reproductive technologies in its bison herd, including birthing a handful of calves in 2022 whose sex had been selected in advance to try to skew the herd more female, which it needs to thrive. 

Snow leopards, rhinoceroses, black-footed ferrets, polar bears: Zoos across the world have spent decades using assisted reproductive technologies to try to pull species back from the brink of oblivion, and some have built impressive laboratory facilities. But maybe their biggest skill is bringing these technologies out of the lab. Every animal requires a unique, delicate dance of hormonal cycles, environmental cues and behaviour to get pregnant. Zookeepers have spent years working closely with these animals to learn their patterns. When the Toronto Zoo wanted to artificially inseminate its wood bison, zookeepers and reproductive scientists spent days huddled under a tarp, using a generator to try to keep sperm and embryos at the exact right temperature while hoping they had successfully synchronized several 2,000 pound hoofed mammals’ ovulation cycles. 

Two years ago, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums became aware of two things, says Dan Ashe, its president and chief executive officer: that Colossal was raising huge sums of money, and the company and its competitors had begun to approach some of the AZA’s 251 member facilities.

Ashe said they learned Colossal had signed agreements with “a couple” of zoos — but the zoos couldn’t talk about those agreements, because of nondisclosure clauses. The AZA has asked Colossal for a list of their members that had entered into agreements with the company, and Colossal has not provided one, Ashe said.

“We don’t know how many of our members have agreements with Colossal, and we don’t know what those agreements do or are for,” says Ashe, who declined to identify the couple of zoos he was aware of.

Christina Hvilsom, chair of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria biobank working group, says that “quite a few zoos in my region have been approached by Colossal, and other companies for that matter as well.”

Those zoos “turned to the association, and said, ‘Hey, we’ve been approached. What is our stance, in terms of biotechnology, synthetic biology, cloning, de-extinction?’”

In response, both the AZA and the EAZA have released position statements to their members. Both acknowledge that biotechnologies have huge value for conservation and have already helped prevent extinctions, and recognize their use to protect “extant” species — ones still alive today.

But they do not support zoos participating in de-extinction, whether that means involving the animals already in their care to help these efforts, or displaying whatever Colossal or other companies come up with. Given the world’s ongoing inability to protect what nature remains on our planet right now, it is “our moral imperative to dedicate our time, talent and energy” to the species still here, the AZA position statement reads.

The AZA provided one carve-out: if governments approve a de-extinction project and ask zoos for help. But Ashe says he has also warned zoos that participating in de-extinction without explicit approval could be illegal. Colossal has discussed using an Asian elephant, an endangered species, as a gestational surrogate to carry a woolly mammoth embryo, and are experimenting with Asian elephant genomes and stem cells. Under U.S. law, zoos are only exempt from prohibitions on keeping endangered species in captivity if they are engaged in “normal husbandry” practices; they need a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to do anything beyond “normal husbandry.”

“This is not normal husbandry,” says Ashe, a former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Matt James, the Colossal executive, says he has interpreted the AZA’s position statements to mean that zoos are under-resourced and should focus their limited means on the species they already have.

“We still have conservation interests that align with zoos, and I think there are plenty of opportunities for us to still work together. And I don’t believe that position statement precludes zoos from doing that,” James says. (Ashe responded to say that “it is not just a suggestion, if that is what Colossal is saying,” and any violation of the policy would be “a matter for board consideration.”)

James defended the company’s use of nondisclosure agreements, saying they were a standard practice for companies sharing technologies with a partner — but that he had told zoos they were free to “share information on this partnership.” (The Star reached out to more than 15 zoos with notable assisted reproduction programs or with large elephant herds. A small number said they had no relationship with the company, the rest did not respond.)

Colossal has publicly announced a partnership with a zoo in Australia, to help restore a lizard thought to be extinct for 50 years until it was rediscovered in 2023. He said projects with other zoos were either “stalled” and didn’t work out, or “we’re building something today that we want to make sure we have a press moment” when they can share what they are doing.

Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s chief scientific officer, says creating tools to protect biodiversity is not just a side benefit. 

“Our mission is not just to bring extinct species back. Matt (James) and I are really, genuinely in this because we care about using this as an opportunity to develop resources that are going to stop species from becoming extinct. But if we can’t partner with other people who are out there doing that work actively, then I don’t think we will have succeeded in that mission.”

In a presentation to zoo professionals last May, James questioned whether zoos were really living up to their own goals.

“I would challenge the idea that zoos are a conservation organization first,” he said, citing an example of a zoo spending $37 million on a new gorilla habitat to attract visitors but only $300,000 on field conservation.

“If zoos do want to be conservation organizations, then they should step up and put their money where their mouth is. … So I think, you know, there’s a paradigm shift that’s required in the way that zoos behave. And trust me, I was a curator. I wanted that $37 million gorilla habitat. I get it, but it’s not field conservation.”

Toronto Zoo CEO DeJong responded with a question about moral hazard that began with the phrase “hold my beer;” the exchange prompted James to reach out and set up a followup meeting later that month, which DeJong and Mastromonaco both attended. (“It was pretty clear that we weren’t ever going to say, hey, let’s start a project together today,” James told the Star.

In the same presentation, James discussed Colossal’s investors. Some want to see conservation impact, and don’t care if they see a return on their money, he said, while others are classic Silicon Valley investors trying to massively multiply their investment. He cited recent research that, he said, “challenges us to start to talk about nature as an asset class.”

People who work at zoos, who see nature as inherently valuable, are not typical, James said: “How do we find ways to make it more lucrative to protect a resource than it is to extract the resource?”

DeJong fundamentally opposes this viewpoint.

“Let’s be clear: Species are not replaceable. They are not commodities. Large-scale genome writing without strict ethical oversight is reckless and irreversible, posing as great a risk to nature as climate change and habitat destruction,” his statement said.

Mastromonaco said the zoo would start gathering experts and consulting conservation groups to try to create a coherent national position on these biotechnologies, their advantages, and their risks.

“There’s nobody right now in Canada saying, all right, but we need to understand it,” she told the Star.

“It’s a blank slate right now. I’m not quite sure where this is going to take us. But somebody’s got to step up.”