As I see it, there are a few unofficial laws of science journalism when it comes to covering new research. The first and most obvious is tha
So what have we learned? A charming rodent can be one of the most powerful tools in a technosavior's pocket. As Nature reported, Colossal is now valued at $10 billion. And what has Colossal produced so far? A hairy mouse that kind of already exists, and a slew of press releases on plans to de-extinct not just mammoths, but also animals like dodos and thylacines. The announcement of the woolly mouse will no doubt rake in even more capital, which was presumably the point and which will probably benefit its investors more than it will a putative, chimerical mammoth. When a company trying to sell itself calls something a "breakthrough," you don't have to believe them.
Gentle Tumblrfolk, I know we're all desperate for good news and that we all love cute, fluffy critters. But this "mammoth mouse" thing is absolute flim flam.
Please click and read the linked article. Sabrina Imbler (who is a great science journalist) does an excellent job explaining how science journalism works nowadays (unfortunately), and how almost no one paid attention to Nature's news story on it, which is what good journalism should be doing for a sensational claim like this.











